Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
We all know the 31,000 um scientists is a joke. Might be 31,000 names on the list but certainly not 31,000 "scientists" which was supposed to be the criteria for signing. Nobody yet has been able to get the scientists sorted from the Mickey Mouse's. The petition also was not to support Robinson's data. Where are the 600 IPCC scientists who agree with Robinson's data?
The second sentence in the petition below always makes me fall on the floor. Well hell, all of it actually. In fact I'd sign it to the way it's worded. It's like no I do not believe I'm going to open the door one day and turn to ash. I don't think anyone has gotten that hysteric.
Quote:
“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences". This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."
|
|
First off, the 600 IPCC scientists aren't paid wo agree with Robinson. They are paid for the job they have, and if you notice in this world, if you speak up against the grain, no matter how much the truth, you lose your funding since you would put the IPCC out of a job.
How touching.
They should all be out of a job.
#2 - over 9,000 of those signatures are Phd's. How many Phd's on the IPCC board? A few? Nice.
And yes, everyone has gotten hysteric - they want to cap growth! Thats hysteria that is out the window! This world can't exist with that kind of cap! Half of us die! Get a clue already and quit being a baby murderer since that is what you are advocating.
At least here in the US we are starting to take a clue - Liebermans bill for Carbon caps caught squashed faster last week than an ant on a summer boardwalk! We will have non of you lies here thank you very much!
-S