Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corralled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL

So, how then, do you explain the very public resignations of renowned Nobel laureates from those august bodies?

LOLOLOLOL......you're really wanting to have that particular pissing contest, walleyed?

So how about you tell us how you "explain the very public" statements urging action to halt anthropogenic global warming issued by these "renowned Nobel laureates"? I mean, since you seem to think so highly of Nobel laureates (or is just the two or three who have expressed AGW skepticism that you respect - LOL). BTW, these names are only a few out of the 1700 prominent scientists who signed the statement below.

NOBEL LAUREATES
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING TO HUMANITY
(not restricted by copyright - free to reproduce)

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT IS SUFFERING CRITICAL STRESS

The Atmosphere

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultra-violet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops.

Water Resources

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste—some of it toxic

Soil

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded—an area larger than India and China combined—and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain—with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe—but the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life—coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change—could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs—small scale and relatively easy to implement.

We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war—amounting to over $1 trillion annually—will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is required—a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere.

We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists—natural, social, economic, political;

We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;

We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and

We require the help of the world's peoples.

We call on all to join us in this task.

Excellent.

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker! And from the honest folks at Berkley no less

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

The entire report is so biased it doesn't make much difference anyway. Professors have already discovered the inadequacies of the report in the group from Berkley's attempt to further push their false agenda. It's just another attempt at the left's mantra of redistribution of wealth and the destruction of what most decent people would like to see our country do.

As another poster pointed out, this demonstrates, again, that your viewpoint is politically based, faith based, and not science based.

But, when discussing science - or attempting to do so - it's just easy to be patient with them because those who are ignorant of science dig their own holes so easily.

That is a sweet payoff for patience, and almost immediate.

That would well describe how you're coming off. You seem to have no understanding of anything discussed, because you've yet to post even a simple sentence about the topic. You stick to your political bias and pretend expertise.

 

[Si modo]

So, how then, do you explain the very public resignations of renowned Nobel laureates from those august bodies?

LOLOLOLOL......you're really wanting to have that particular pissing contest, walleyed?

So how about you tell us how you "explain the very public" statements urging action to halt anthropogenic global warming issued by these "renowned Nobel laureates"? I mean, since you seem to think so highly of Nobel laureates (or is just the two or three who have expressed AGW skepticism that you respect - LOL). BTW, these names are only a few out of the 1700 prominent scientists who signed the statement below.

NOBEL LAUREATES
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING TO HUMANITY
(not restricted by copyright - free to reproduce)

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT IS SUFFERING CRITICAL STRESS

The Atmosphere

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultra-violet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops.

Water Resources

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste—some of it toxic

Soil

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded—an area larger than India and China combined—and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain—with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe—but the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life—coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change—could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs—small scale and relatively easy to implement.

We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war—amounting to over $1 trillion annually—will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is required—a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere.

We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists—natural, social, economic, political;

We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;

We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and

We require the help of the world's peoples.

We call on all to join us in this task.

Excellent.

The entire report is so biased it doesn't make much difference anyway. Professors have already discovered the inadequacies of the report in the group from Berkley's attempt to further push their false agenda. It's just another attempt at the left's mantra of redistribution of wealth and the destruction of what most decent people would like to see our country do.

As another poster pointed out, this demonstrates, again, that your viewpoint is politically based, faith based, and not science based.

But, when discussing science - or attempting to do so - it's just easy to be patient with them because those who are ignorant of science dig their own holes so easily.

That is a sweet payoff for patience, and almost immediate.

That would well describe how you're coming off. You seem to have no understanding of anything discussed, because you've yet to post even a simple sentence about the topic. You stick to your political bias and pretend expertise.

I'm actually asking you to post the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

As you are so knowledgeable in the topic, so you tell us, that would be important information to have.

If the science supports opinions, it's a good idea to post it, in a thread discussing science.

 

[SAT]

Same question. It's an important one, too.

If the science is there, then let's see it.

Otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean. Or, more accurately, a belief.

You've been given more science than you have any idea how to handle. Your rejection of that science is based on a belief.

Show us your rebuttal of what has been posted from one poster after another.

 

[SAT]

I'm actually asking you to post the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

As you are so knowledgeable in the topic, so you tell us, that would be important information to have.

If the science supports opinions, it's a good idea to post it, in a thread discussing science.

That was posted days ago, by another poster. You were unable to intelligently discuss what he posted.

 

[Si modo]

Same question. It's an important one, too.

If the science is there, then let's see it.

Otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean. Or, more accurately, a belief.

You've been given more science than you have any idea how to handle.

....

That isn't true. I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.

That's not science.

I told you what science is. Peer-reviewed scientific journals, remember?

.... Your rejection of that science is based on a belief.

....

See, a newpaper and/or media outlet has reporters. When they write about science, they interpret it. Same with a blog writer. Same with anyone with an opinion. They interpret what they read or what someone tells them.

Scientists, one the other hand, don't use any of those sources when discussing science. They want to see the science.

So, if you want to play at science, that's how it's played.

I didn't make the rules.

.... Show us your rebuttal of what has been posted from one poster after another.

When discussing science, I only consider the science. There is no point in rebutting an opinion or belief.

 

[SAT]

That isn't true. I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.

That's not science.

I told you what science is. Peer-reviewed scientific journals, remember?

It is science, honey. It's reporting from those same peer-reviewed journals. But those are not available on line, and the information is over both of our heads.

So we use reputable sources, like the EPA link [which is not a blog], to show you what scientists say.

.... Show us your rebuttal of what has been posted from one poster after another.

When discussing science, I only consider the science. There is no point in rebutting an opinion or belief.

Well, no, you don't consider the science at all, and you certainly aren't relying on peer reviewed journals for your opinions on the subject. You don't discuss. You just repeat "correlation is not causation" and "show us the science" over and over again.

Pay attention. Rebut what has been posted with science. Show us the science that supports your claims.

 

[Si modo]

That isn't true. I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.

That's not science.

I told you what science is. Peer-reviewed scientific journals, remember?

It is science, honey. It's reporting from those same peer-reviewed journals. But those are not available on line, and the information is over both of our heads.

So we use reputable sources, like the EPA link [which is not a blog], to show you what scientists say.

.....

It's quite sad that you cannot even comprehend what I've written. And, I didn't use too complicated vocabulary.

You really do need to know the basics, serious basics, of science.

I understand that you are hesitant to believe me but I have to think you know someone in your life who is a scientist.

Ask them what science is. I explained what publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals are, but to save your scrolling finger, again. Peer-reviewed science is an analysis of the science presented for publication - hypothesis and/or valid scientific question, method, procedures, data, results, conclusions, and problems addressed and recommendations.

That is science. Not a blog, not an item from the BBC, not an opinion or op-ed, etc.

When you want to discuss science, do so. If not, for the good of science and scientific integrity, stay the hell away.

 

[SAT]

Several years ago, some dumbass posted a list of "scientists" who doubted AGW. When that list was investigated, it included lab techs, dentists, ObGyn's and other such "scientists". If that's how you're defining scientist, then yeah, you're a scientist.

Now.

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGW.

Thanks. I look forward to reading them.

 

[gslack]

Spamming the same 2 or 3 studies using altered link descriptions is dishonest as well as misleading troll.....

The first one is to an OOPS! page.. I warned you before about hotlinking.. People don't like their bandwidth sucked by a leeching forum spammer.. Keep it up and your service provider will take issue..

The next 4 go to the exact same page...

And the rest all go to the same 2-3 places all of them stating nothing that addresses the question he asked you...

okay so tell me what activist group is feeding you this shit? Please inform me so I can take issue with them directly for using scientific papers (or abstracts of them) to make false claims... This has been scripted for you we both know it.. I recognize an automated scripting job when I see it, its my job to spot shit just like this. You either had it handed to you or used a service to get it for you...

Best to tell me tool, you know I am anal enough to find out on my own....

Ya see trollingblunderedtheeunichSATkonradsocks, All I gotta do is repost the same thing and it realy pretty much tells the tale again... Thats how truth works...

Now please remove all the duplicate links you fraud...

 

[Si modo]

Several years ago, some dumbass posted a list of "scientists" who doubted AGW. When that list was investigated, it included lab techs, dentists, ObGyn's and other such "scientists". If that's how you're defining scientist, then yeah, you're a scientist.

Now.

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGW.

Thanks. I look forward to reading them.

Ummm, there is nothing to rebut. There is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you can provide any science to back up your belief, then do so.

If not, you just have beliefs.

Logic does not allow an unsupported claim to stand true until shown to be untrue. That's the ignorance of demanding that a negative to be proved.

 

[SAT]

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.

 

[gslack]

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.

Please behave and act like an adult or I will go about doing what I do best again make this identity cry too junior..

Gender attacks are childish, and tell on the poster... Follow me socks? Sure you do...

 

[Si modo]

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.

When there actually is something to rebut, I will.

All there is are unsupported claims. Cheap talk.

(I assume "AGS" is a typo.)

An unsupported claim does not stand true simply because no one can 'prove' it untrue.

If that were the case, then my saying that you are a moron is true until you 'prove' that it is not true.

 

[SAT]

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.

When there actually is something to rebut, I will.

All there is are unsupported claims. Cheap talk.

(I assume "AGS" is a typo.)

An unsupported claim does not stand true simply because no one can 'prove' it untrue.

If that were the case, then my saying that you are a moron is true until you 'prove' that it is not true.

There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.

Please rebut those studies.

Thanks.

 

[gslack]

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.

When there actually is something to rebut, I will.

All there is are unsupported claims. Cheap talk.

(I assume "AGS" is a typo.)

An unsupported claim does not stand true simply because no one can 'prove' it untrue.

If that were the case, then my saying that you are a moron is true until you 'prove' that it is not true.

I have reviewed your findings and agree with you on all points...

So that's two reviews that correlate your hypotheses. I believe he must be a moron then..

 

[Si modo]

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.

When there actually is something to rebut, I will.

All there is are unsupported claims. Cheap talk.

(I assume "AGS" is a typo.)

An unsupported claim does not stand true simply because no one can 'prove' it untrue.

If that were the case, then my saying that you are a moron is true until you 'prove' that it is not true.

There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.

....

Then show them. Just what I have asked you to do over and over again.

Your typed words do nothing to support your claim. It's just cheap talk.

 

[SAT]

I'm not making a claim.

I'm asking you to provide the science to support your claim.

Thanks.

 

[Si modo]

I'm not making a claim.

I'm asking you to provide the science to support your claim.

Thanks.

Yes you did make a claim.

Here it is: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Your asking me to prove something does not exist is an idiotic request.

 

[SAT]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

 

[gslack]

JUst so you trollingedtheblunderoldsocksSATonaeunich clones know, I did just a few minutes of poking around with a couple workmates and found out a few things already..

First the term... Astroturfing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Astroturfing"

"Astroturfing is a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers attempt to manipulate public opinion by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, or highly organized professional groups with money from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often, the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research. Beneficiaries are not "grass root" campaigners but distant organizations that orchestrate such campaigns."

I think I should look further don't you?