Reptile & Amphibian Forums

rodney,

Please don't ignore the question I posted below about environmentalists "huge" contributions to liberal political candidates, OK? But here I wanted to explore some of your assertions about global warming.

You stated, " How can the liberals, who get huge amounts of funding from environmental groups, ignore the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening? "

Now that is a pretty strong statement, and frankly, its nonsense. I would just ignore it if I didn' think it might be influencing some young readers here. So I'm going to ask you to support that claim, OK?

Can we first settle the "Heidelburg Appeal" question? Lets just focus on this for the time, then we can move on to other evidence, OK?

The Heidelburg Appeal was written in 1992, so it is a bit dated. But more importantly, we need to understand why the authors wrote what they did. Were they argueing that man made global warming does not exists? Rather than assume, lets take a look, OK?

Question #1:
When you read it (and I would encourage everyone who hasn't to do so) what do you see that indicates the signatories do not believe that man-caused global warming is occurring?

Question #2
When you say that the "vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening" you making a very strong statement. You must know then how many scientists there are, and then what percentage don't belive global warming is even happening. Would you please provide us with those figures?

Address these two issue and then we can move on to others, OK?

I wouldn't dream of overlooking your questions. I wouldn't want anyone (adults or children) to be misled, or have their liberal brainwashing reinforced by you. Interesting how you never answer my questions though, and accuse me of ignoring yours.

I'll state it again. Prove that global warming exists and that we are the cause of it. Or prove that most scientists agree that there is global warming and we are the cause. (Get some real numbers and don't quote environmental groups' nonsense). Why assume it is real just because it can help some lawyers make a buck suing corporations or the UN fining the US? Why are real polluters (like China) exempt from the Kyoto accord and clean, modern countries like the US not exempt? It makes no sense unless you follow the money!

You state in your post, You stated, " How can the liberals, who get huge amounts of funding from environmental groups, ignore the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even

Now that is a pretty strong statement, and frankly, its nonsense. I would just ignore it if I didn' think it might be influencing some young readers here. So I'm going to ask you to support that claim, OK?

You think that what I stated is a strong statement, when global warming (a weak theory at best) is regularly represented in the press as fact? Get real! When have you last heard it represented as the theory of global warming?

Go down this post and you will find evidence I dug up that a couple of environmental groups have each given over 3 million dollars to 527 organizations in 2002 alone. Yes, I think that is a huge amount of money to give as a donation.

As for the Heidelburg Appeal, yes it is a bit dated. Unfortunately that is the most current ratio I know of. About 10 times as many scientists signed it as did scientists that made the claim that global warming is occurring. I wish I had something more current, but I don't. It is the best data I have been able to find of its kind anywhere. But, as far as I know, that ratio is still about the same. It could be more heavily weighted against, just as easily as it could be less.

You stated
Were they argueing that man made global warming does not exists? Rather than assume, lets take a look, OK?

That has been my argument all along! Why assume global warming exists? Why are we so quick to assume that such garbage is true when it is being presented by environmental groups as fact, when so many of the things they have said in the past were lies? We know that we are but a drop in a bucket on this planet. We know the earth has gone through many ice ages and warming long before we were even here. We know that things like large forest fires and volcanoes do far more in a couple of days (as far as green house gasses/air pollution) than we do in many years, yet we assume we are the cause? What about the tremendous mass of the Earth core and the tremendous amount of heat the magma gives off (trillions of times more heat than we could ever dream of producing). Why, when pollution was really bad (the 1950s thru the 1970s) were scientists talking about an ice age? Why, now that things are so much better, air quality wise, are they talking about humans now causing global warming? Just using common sense and logic, and the facts in those two statements above, you should come to the conclusion that pollution causes cooling and less pollution causes warming! Yet you believe that which doesn't make sense and isn't proved? I'm not claiming this is true, just that even though it is the exact opposite of what they claim today, it at least makes some sense!-It concurs with what these "scientists" have been saying in the past and today as far as the relationship between air pollution and global temps!

As for your question 1
Question #1:
When you read it (and I would encourage everyone who hasn't to do so) what do you see that indicates the signatories do not believe that man-caused global warming is occurring?

This is what I see..We do however forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data. sounds like they don't believe in it to me!

(by they way, I know that all the scientists that believe in global warming don't also believe we are the cause. Many think it is isn't happening, many think there is actually cooling, many believe in it and we are the cause, and many believe in it and we are not the cause---considering all these varying opinions, claiming it is fact and that we are the cause of it, is totally irresponsible)

Are you aware the Kyoto accord and United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is primarily based on assumptions and a computer model? If that isn't nonsense science, I don't know what is. I was looking into this because of the constant changes they keep making on projections of just how much the Earth will warm. Early on, it was 10 degrees in then next 100 years, then it was lowered to 5 degrees, then it was 2 degrees, then it was something like .2 degrees, now it has been upped to something like 8 degrees. Know why? They changed their computer model! I bet if they changed their model again, they could come back to the ice age theory once again! This isn't based on pure data, but on predictions on future fuel use, what that use might do to green house gasses, how much those gasses might influence global warming, etc. total c**p. The United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to admit that is why the predictions were changed (a new computer model) when governments were surprised by the change and asked why the increase.

Reminds me of the Greenpeace case where they came up with a computer model to show 500 species were becoming extinct in the US every year due to logging. When challenged by the former Greenpeace founder (who quit after his organization was taken over by lawyers) to name one species that had become extinct, they could not even name one!

It used to be that scientists would come up with a theory or hypothesis, they would then test it by doing experiments, those test results would have to be verified by being able to reproduced the experiment to get the same results. Now science has been corrupted into someone making a computer model, based on many assumptions, and then have people vote on their "feelings" of this computer models accuracy.

Here's an interesting URL.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/GWModels.html

Now, about environmental groups giving money to the DNC.. (just do a search using Environmental groups donations to the DNC)

First, a quick definition, for those that don't know.

According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office.

Differences from PACs On the face of the above definition, a §527 Organization sounds like a PAC. In effect that is what a §527 organization is—a PAC by another name. However, there is one key difference, a §527 organization does not fall within the regulator realm of the Federal Election Commission and therefore it is not subject to the same limits as FEC regulated PACs.

Often called “soft money” PACs or organizations, a §527 organization is permitted to accept contributions in any amount from any source. However, the organization is required to make regular reports to the Internal Revenue Service of its funding and expenditures.

Now, here is a link to an adobe acrobat file that shows 2 environmental groups each giving 3 million dollars in donations to a 527 organization. (found by doing a search of DNC contributions by environmental groups)

http://www.citizen.org/documents/totals_jan6_03.pdf

(Let me guess, now you are going to claim they were giving the monies to influence voters to vote for George Bush?) Are you also going to also ignore the fact that every far left wing liberal votes for virtually every bill the environmental lobby/lawyers comes up with, regardless of recommendations by scientists and experts.

I know, you want proof of that statement also. How about the forestry department (being in charge of the forests health for year and having tons of experience managing the forests) wanting to thin the forests for many years here in California, and the liberal legislators ignoring them and taking the side of environmental groups like the Sierra club (a biased party) instead? It amazes me how people can so easily take the sides of interested parties over disinterested parties and actual experts.

Rodney

Lets just focus on one of your most interesting claims. Maybe we can figure out if your in anyway credible, OK? Then we can go on to your other blatherings.

Your statement: "How can the liberals, who get huge amounts of funding from environmental groups, ignore the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening?"

Please defend the second part of this assertion, that the "vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening"

Again, I will refer you to pushback.com

2000 scientists claimed that global warming does exist and 4000 respond with a petition (Heidelburg appeal) that states the opposite.

Then 15,000 scientists sigh a petition (in 1997) also stating the same. What more evidence do you need? In the above case, it is a 2 to one ratio against global warming. In this example, it is far worse. How many scientists can you show that support the claim of global warming exists and that we are causing it? More than 15,000? Why must I prove everything I have said in my posts while you prove nothing and can't even answer any questions I have posed? Is it because common sense prevents you from answering them honestly and thus contradicting "the fact" of global warming? Then you question my credibility? You can read the petitions yourself.

I will now question your credibility. What credible evidence do you have that global warming does exist and that we are the cause of it? What evidence do you have that more than 15,000 scientists support the theory of global warming? And even if more do support it, what evidence do you have that it should be represented as factual?

Since no one else has this info., I highly doubt that you do! If this evidence did exist, don't you think it would be hard to find 15,000 scientists that oppose the theory of global warming?

Rodney

rodney. I'll remind you of your statement again, and again ask if you can defend it:

Your statement: "How can the liberals, who get huge amounts of funding from environmental groups, ignore the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening?"

Now tell me please. What evidence do you have that "the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming even exists"?

You certainly don't believe that the 4000 who signed the petition make up "the vast majority" of scientists do you? How many scientists do you think there are on earth?

Well, considering that you are comparing 4,000 to 2,000 in one case and 15,000 to 2,000 in another case, yes, I'd say that means most.

Sure there are more than 17,000 scientists in the world, but since that's all that responded to the two polls, that's all the evidence there is. (as far as I have been able to find)

If you were to ask 17,000 people their opinion on something, and 15,000 gave you the same response, wouldn't you say that is most? Would you argue that there are more than 17,000 people in the world, so there is no evidence that most believe this? Most reasonable people wouldn't make this argument due to the sample size in question.

My definition of most is 1/2 plus one. What is your definition?

I'll ask you again. What evidence do you have that will disprove this point? The only evidence available to me, that I have been able to find, (these polls) shows this to be true.

If you have evidence that shows other wise, I'd love to see it.

Please only show credible evidence, not a ridiculous quote from an environmental group!

Rodney

The end of this article is the most interesting. It quotes a couple of polls taken by environmental scientists and climatologists, and it also confirms what I have been saying, though in a slightly lesser ratio, but again, most of these scientists don't believe in global warming.

It's interesting that every environmental group which has written about global warming seems to say that there is a consensus, as do most reporters, but they do not have any data to back it up!

Note that in these surveys, it is 10% agree to 67% disagree it is happening (aproximatley a 1 to 7 ratio that I would consider to mean most!-LOL) and most think if it is happening, it is natural and not caused by man.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/myth_of_global_warming.htm

Rodney