White House Issues Climate Report

Can you produce more than 31,000 names that make up your imaginary "solid majority"?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...jecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday
By Noel Sheppard | May 18, 2008 - 17:12 ET

The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday.

Although this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, DC., it seems a metaphysical certitude media will completely ignore the event.
Isn't it ironic, dontcha think?

As announced Thursday by PR Newswire via StreetInsider.com:

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM

What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"

When: 10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's 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 climate 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.

It is evident that 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."

Folks should recall that this petition was first circulated in 1999 garnering more than 19,000 signatures. The alarmists discounted its significance because there were some duplicate names, and some of the signatories apparently weren't scientists -- or so the story goes.

With over 31,000 now on the list, all with degrees in science -- including 9,000 PhDs! -- what might this do to the nonsensical premise of there being a consensus concerning this issue?

Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

 

God led you to Al Gore ? God led you to believe humans could affect his will ?

 

Not a very convincing answer.

This is like saying that one doesn't take the scientific community seriously because they haven't come up with a cure for the common cold. In other words, since they cannot solve that problem, everything else they say is questionable.

This, of course, makes no sense. The scientific enterprise has made numerous and significant contributions to the welfare of mankind.

It is extremely doubtful that the question of God's existence is really a "scientific" one to begin with. And as for coming from monkeys, your position on this is open to the argument that not all of the scripture is to be taken literally. We have accounts of mountains clapping their hands and trees singing. Are these to be taken literally?

 

I trust the reader is smart enough to know that those scientists who believe global warming is connected to human activity - doubtless many times the 31,000 figure - are not going to have written their names down on some "list".

As for "solid majority" being "imaginary", I repeat part of the material from the wikipedia article:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."

The basic conclusion includes the connection between human activity and global warming: Footnote 4 is as follows:

"The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico, and South Africa. Professional societies include American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia."

Is it really likely that all these scientific institutions are involved in a vast and sprawling conspiracy to distort the truth?

 

Meaning, of course, that you have no proof at all to offer.

Just a flat statement <edited>.

 

So you say.

Your credibility is a little low right no.

You say you're a Christian , but don't seem to be convinced that God exists. How does that work, exactly?

 

Apart from the entirely unjustified implication that I might be lying, my point is entirely legitimate. Even if 31,000 scientists have agreed that global warming is not connected to human activity, this does not mean one can conclude these 31,000 are correct simply because there is no "list" of those who think there is a connection. If we polled all scientists, we might well find that many times as many scientists think that there is a connection.

In fact, this almost certainly would the case, based on the wikipedia statement that "the overwhelming majority of scientists" do think there is a connection.

Unless, of course, wikipedia, like me is "lying"....

 

From the web in relation to the matter of these 31,000:

 

Dude!! I am on your side of this issue! Please read my post carefully!

 

Really ? Like where ?

 

While this was not directed at me, I will take a stab at answering this question. From 2 Kings 20:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " 7 Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered

Here we have God purposing to do one thing and then "changing His mind" in response to Hez's prayer.

 

I see God's will being done in both examples. Nowhere did God's will get thwarted by man's actions.