What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Beats By Dr. Dre view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers make some noise about Dr. Dre's Beats noise-canceling headphones.
22 Comments
- theodicey, on 04/29/2008, -4/+10The Heartland Institute's big mistake was actually publishing the list.
Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis Avery should have just waved it around drunkenly. Like Joe McCarthy, with a neckbeard. - jforjools, on 04/30/2008, -4/+9stop spamming this.
And as for some scientists truly having doubts--fine. I've read books by a couple of them...but in general the claim is not that 'global warming is false'...it simply questions portions of the theory.
But what's so bad about acting against global warming? At the very worst, we'll have been wrong--but have left a cleaner environment for our kids to live in. ...Where's the horror? - inactive, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6Just shows you that there isn't much of a case in favor of there not being global warming. The heartland institue is a joke.
- Feralvision, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3The truth always hurts:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ... - Feralvision, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3The Heartland Institute IS sponsored by Exxon. This is merely a shallow attempt by the oil corporations to try and dispute the global consensus among scientists of man made global warming.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war ... - greenfyre, on 04/29/2008, -4/+5Given all of the other lies and scams of the Deniers, why would this particular fraud trouble them at all?
- octopod42, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Haha, I bet all these quotes are as fake as the "signatures" in the original story.
- CherBear39, on 04/29/2008, -4/+5I would be outraged. Does the Heartland Institute not see ever day and impact we as people have on out environment? Who in there right mind would think otherwise? I suppose next they are going to say the Holocaust never happened either.... And these are the people we want educating our youth?
- UglyFacts, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Caught Red-handed-Oops!
It is most important to bear in mind that denialist arguments are not aimed at climate scientists, but at the unwary general public who are susceptible to being fooled by pseudo-scientific sleight-of-hand. There can be little doubt that an extensive references section in books and articles that challenge the consensus view give the casual reader the strong but entirely misleading impression that numerous eminent scientists dispute some aspect of climate science in the title, but only by reading and understanding each and every reference, will the reader determine that the truth is rather different from that claimed by the author. Denialist authors are increasingly using such dishonest tactics in the sure knowledge that most of their target audience will neither bother to read all the references, nor fully comprehend them even if they do. - Feralvision, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...
- dorkulon, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Unbelievable, and yet not at all surprising.
- Feralvision, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Are you sponsored by exxon mobile by any chance.........
- danceswithcats, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0I'm not going to dig through this dubious list. I've been had before. They usually turn out to be right wing economists, disgraced food scientists or Dick Cheney's pool boy. It's real, man; complex; open to further study, but REAL.
- millerftw, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2I actually don't notice anything different today than from 10 years ago.
- decet, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2This is a great relief for me. It explains how a scientific consensus is made up these days. I was greatly concerned that it was actually possible to round up 500 serious researchers denying the link between human activities and climate change.
- UglyFacts, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3If Dennis Avery and his ilk really had the enormous level of support that they claim, they wouldn't have to invent it. Strangely, more and more scientists are complaining that their work does NOT support Dennis Avery's claims. Based upon this, Dennis Avery's claims of support would seem to be both exaggerated and fictional. This is yet another desperate and feeble attempt by the denial industry to combat the scientific consensus revealed by Professor Naomi Oreskes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/168 ...
The American Denial of Global Warming - Video
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
Note that Professor Oreskes has become a hate figure among the AGW denialists.
One way to be certain that the writer is a denialist is to see whether he/she mentions Al Gore. FYI, Al Gore is NOT a scientist, but denialists hate him so much because of his movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth' that they just have to introduce an ad hominem and smear him. Climate change is science and there is no need for smears or politics. Yes AIT contained errors, but they were minor.
For those that complain that science doesn't rely upon consensus, this is true. But what is important to understand is WHY the consensus has grown. Climate change was originally disregarded by the majority of climate scientists, but as the evidence accumulated, so did the number of climate scientists who were convinced by that evidence. Now, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have now been convinced by the growing mountain of evidence that supports the view that the probability is at least ~90% that the anomalous warmth is not part of natural variation, and that MOST of the warming is the result of increased levels of greenhouse gases and that the origin of those GHGs is human activity and CO2 increases are related strongly to burning ~7 gigatonnes of fossil fuels per year. The fossil source of the carbon is clear from the shifting isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon. The science is not settled, but the majority scientific view is that enough is already known and has been known for some time that humans must reduce our emissions of fossil CO2 and other GHGs. Solar and other effects have not been discounted, but are thought to be minor.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_S ...
Unsurprisingly, the denial industry funded directly or indirectly by the fossil-fuel industry are aligned with those who deny anthropogenic climate change for political reasons. Their thinking being that the US economy relies upon copious supplies of inexpensive energy – therefore in their eyes, anyone who argues otherwise must be an anti-american 'watermelon' - green on the outside and red on the outside. This train of politico-economic thought has now been shown to be flawed and 25 of the world's top economists believe that the US economy will fare better if actions to reduce emissions are introduced, as compared with business as usual scenarios.
http://www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourself/
http://environment.yale.edu/news/5624/reducing-car ...
The Exxon denial industry
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warm ... - UglyFacts, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1This is NOT how a scientific consensus is 'made-up'! This was just fiction! Just ask the scientists who are complaining!
For more about the scientific consensus on global warming, see my post below. Look for the Oreskes links. Note that her paper on the scientific consensus was published in a peer-reviewed journal. - RogueGenius, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0There is not a single credible scientist in the world that denies either the existence of global warming or that mankind is the primary contributing factor to it. Not one. A list like this only serves one purpose - to warn potential employers that there people are, at best poor scientists, or at worse, actual kooks who place their beliefs over the facts.
- timethief, on 10/30/2008, -3/+1This is an absolutely despicable act. How outrageous!
- inactive, on 04/30/2008, -8/+6Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys:
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers - gnomic, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3The heartland institute should be sued for slander and defamation of character.
- dorkulon, on 05/01/2008, -3/+0Who gives a crap what you've noticed? You think you can judge the climate conditions of the entire world by looking out your window? Do you know a damn thing about what you're talking about? No? Then why talk at all?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is