German scientists reject man-made global warming

Why is it that when someone pulls a list of dissenters from climate change or Darwinism or whatnot, it is invariably full of fluff.

The only reason this is news is that they openly came out and said it. Come up to MIT or Harvard and hang out in the halls; lots of scientists are extremely skeptical but the open skeptics get their funding cut and threatening letters from environmental groups.

Bravo to the brave for saying "we don't know".

HerbieHeadley said:

“pseudo religion”

German scientists reject man-made global warming | Spero News

Click to expand...

They obviously haven't talked to Al Gore.
He will show them the error of their way.

I was thinking about it... tell you what, give me 1 million dollars and I guarantee that I can get you the signatures of 120 German scientists who believe the world is flat. Once we have 120 signatures (twice what these guys managed) we'll send a letter to the German Prime Minister protesting radical round earth theories being presented as fact in German textbooks.

Baggins said:

And here are the ones on that list with relevant qualifications:



6 meteorologists one of whom is a climatologist, I'm impressed.

Why should I give a stuff what :



thinks about climate?

Beats me.

I think the AGW debate needs a project steve if it hasn't already got one.

the scientific consensus is that AGW is real and its effects don't look like doing us any good at all as a species.

I'll go with the consensus of relevant scientists every time thank you, as ACougar says you can find a few scientists that will agree with any dang fool statement you care to make doesn't make it correct.

Click to expand...

ACougar said:

I was thinking about it... tell you what, give me 1 million dollars and I guarantee that I can get you the signatures of 120 German scientists who believe the world is flat. Once we have 120 signatures (twice what these guys managed) we'll send a letter to the German Prime Minister protesting radical round earth theories being presented as fact in German textbooks.

Click to expand...

you know, you scare me when we agree.
Cause, I'm not sure that your shifting my way.

HerbieHeadley said:

“pseudo religion”

German scientists reject man-made global warming | Spero News

Click to expand...

60 out of how many?

Of the 60 how many were climatologists?

How may German climatologists refused to sign the petition?

AGW deniers are becoming downright absurd in their defense now...

Global warming is real. It's last plague #4:

"Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory" (Rev. 16:8-9).

The Bible doesn't say whether or not man contributes.

In the words of the most famous MIT grads, I call BOOOOOOGUUUUSSSS.

Which halls were you hanging out in? Who are these "many skeptical scientists"? Your entire argument appears to be an appeal to authority, but worse than that not even a specific authority, but an appeal to authority based solely on location.

As for the skeptical scientists getting their funding cut, lets take a quick look at that claim (although it is a little hard seeing ery few of the skeptics actually do research). One active example is Bill Gray, he has received $600,000 in funding from NSF in the last 5 years. Does that sound like he has had his funding cut off because of his views?

It would be one thing if they were saying "we don't know", however folks like Bob Carter and Tim Ball are actually claiming "The Earth ISN't Warming". Haaaarvaaard's very own Sallie Baliunus is claiming that the observed warming CANNOT be caused by CO2. Sounds like not only can the skeptics not get their story straight, they have gone beyond skepticism to supporting positions with almost no supporting evidence.

wpiman2 said:

The only reason this is news is that they openly came out and said it. Come up to MIT or Harvard and hang out in the halls; lots of scientists are extremely skeptical but the open skeptics get their funding cut and threatening letters from environmental groups.

Bravo to the brave for saying "we don't know".

Click to expand...

chaim said:

In the words of the most famous MIT grads, I call BOOOOOOGUUUUSSSS.

Which halls were you hanging out in? Who are these "many skeptical scientists"? Your entire argument appears to be an appeal to authority, but worse than that not even a specific authority, but an appeal to authority based solely on location.

As for the skeptical scientists getting their funding cut, lets take a quick look at that claim (although it is a little hard seeing ery few of the skeptics actually do research). One active example is Bill Gray, he has received $600,000 in funding from NSF in the last 5 years. Does that sound like he has had his funding cut off because of his views?

It would be one thing if they were saying "we don't know", however folks like Bob Carter and Tim Ball are actually claiming "The Earth ISN't Warming". Haaaarvaaard's very own Sallie Baliunus is claiming that the observed warming CANNOT be caused by CO2. Sounds like not only can the skeptics not get their story straight, they have gone beyond skepticism to supporting positions with almost no supporting evidence.

Click to expand...

Not familiar with Bill Gray's work. When time allows I'll look into it.

Time is short for me; but your argument makes absolutely no sense to me; if skeptics are saying "we don't know"; then how can you possibly expect them to come to a consensus?

You can be skeptical of something and not agree with the other skeptics next to you. If the consensus for the best color for a car is determined to be silver; but I think it is blue and you think it is red-- it doesn't mean that the best color is silver then because we didn't get our story straight.

Now certainly this example involves more a matter of opinion; but you could apply the same argument in any field where people may have a difference of opinion which cannot be measured immediately.

Tenka said:

Why is it that when someone pulls a list of dissenters from climate change or Darwinism or whatnot, it is invariably full of fluff.

Click to expand...

Are you equating Darwinism with climate change?

That is like equating Newton's third law with string theory. They both could very well be true but the former has had much more time to be vetted.

I get it now. Since the 66 + scientists put thier names and careers on the line to state what they feel the evidence supports, we have the followers crying about what kind of letters are behind thirer name.

Click to expand...

I bolded that part because i it! Adding the "+" is impressive.

See...the problem HH is that those letters mean something. They aren't just arbitrary misspellings of their names; they signify the amount of knowledge someone has in a related field.


Think of it this way: Which doctor would you rather go see:

John Harper B.Sc, MSc, PhD, M.D.

OR

William Harper B.A.


I mean, they're just letters right? William Harper B.A. majored in communications but DID take a first aid course in junior high. Apparently, you argue that John and William are both equally knowledge and prepared to treat you.

I consider everyone of them to be souls of virtue, that could not keep the NWO scam alive.

Click to expand...

Of course you do: They agree with you.
And FYI: Virtue has nothing to do with empirical evidence.

You missed the point. A lot of the skeptics aren't saying "we don't know", they are saying things like:
- "The Earth is not Warming"
- "The Earth is warming, but the forcing is not anthropogenic"
- "The Earth is warming, it is largely anthropogenic, but its a good thing"

This is not the same as saying we don't know, these are all positive claims, and they are mutually exclusive. There is a difference between being skeptical and supporting a different theory.

wpiman2 said:

Not familiar with Bill Gray's work. When time allows I'll look into it.

Time is short for me; but your argument makes absolutely no sense to me; if skeptics are saying "we don't know"; then how can you possibly expect them to come to a consensus?

You can be skeptical of something and not agree with the other skeptics next to you. If the consensus for the best color for a car is determined to be silver; but I think it is blue and you think it is red-- it doesn't mean that the best color is silver then because we didn't get our story straight.

Now certainly this example involves more a matter of opinion; but you could apply the same argument in any field where people may have a difference of opinion which cannot be measured immediately.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there is still plenty to disagree on.

Until there is a serious challenge to the global consensus though, I see no reason to doubt it.

Your car is making strange sounds and you take it to 100 mechanics to get thier diagnosis... 99 tell you that you need a tune up because your timing is off and 1 tells you that it's caused by poor quality gas. Are you going to listen to the 1 just because he tells you what you want to hear or the 99 who tell you there is a problem with your timing?

I'm not an auto mechanic or an expert on global warming, however if I get a consensus of opinions (90+% agree) on something... I'm going to trust it. If the mechanics are split 60/40 on the issue I'll probably do a good bit of research myself (especially if it's a lot more expensive than a tune up)until I feel I understand why each hold thier postion and then make an informed decision.

Billnew said:

you know, you scare me when we agree.
Cause, I'm not sure that your shifting my way.

Click to expand...

ACougar said:

I'm sure there is still plenty to disagree on.

Until there is a serious challenge to the global consensus though, I see no reason to doubt it.

Your car is making strange sounds and you take it to 100 mechanics to get thier diagnosis... 99 tell you that you need a tune up because your timing is off and 1 tells you that it's caused by poor quality gas. Are you going to listen to the 1 just because he tells you what you want to hear or the 99 who tell you there is a problem with your timing?

I'm not an auto mechanic or an expert on global warming, however if I get a consensus of opinions (90+% agree) on something... I'm going to trust it. If the mechanics are split 60/40 on the issue I'll probably do a good bit of research myself (especially if it's a lot more expensive than a tune up)until I feel I understand why each hold thier postion and then make an informed decision.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that those 99 mechanics don't make a penny if you simply buy better gas; but they profit if you tune up your car.

chaim said:

You missed the point. A lot of the skeptics aren't saying "we don't know", they are saying things like:
- "The Earth is not Warming"
- "The Earth is warming, but the forcing is not anthropogenic"
- "The Earth is warming, it is largely anthropogenic, but its a good thing"

This is not the same as saying we don't know, these are all positive claims, and they are mutually exclusive. There is a difference between being skeptical and supporting a different theory.

Click to expand...

How is that third one even a skeptic?

I dunno, but that group seems to align themselves with the "skeptical side" - see "The greening earth society" and co2science.

wpiman2 said:

How is that third one even a skeptic?

Click to expand...

RevSJamison said:

I am sure in about another decade or two, they'll be back saying we're headed for another ice age.

I don't have a witty comment to respond to yours with....this sucks!

Click to expand...

This is such a stupid arguments. The whole ice age thing was a misinterpretation by the media of a report by The Academy of Science. Most scientists even then saw the amount of CO2 we were pumping into the air as something that could possible lead to warming.

wpiman2 said:

Bear in mind that those 99 mechanics don't make a penny if you simply buy better gas; but they profit if you tune up your car.

Click to expand...

Which is why I would dig deeper if only 50-60% were saying it. It's not 50-60% though it's more like 99.96% (SWAG based on 166K scientists in Germany and 60 or so who dissented against man-made global warming.) That doesn't mean that 99.96% agree on everything, just that 99.96% agree that CO2 is a problem and that humans are contributing to the problem (not the extent)with ever increasing CO2 emissions.