world

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

23 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

We don't dispute the link between smoking and lung cancer simply because a large number of scientists have given their informed opinions on the subject. We trust their opinions and finding implicitly without actually knowing anything about cancer ourselves. But when it comes to global warming EVERYONE'S suddenly a scientist, taking tiny fragments of the whole arguement and using that to justify their pathetic ideologies.

If a majority of global warming scientists say global warming is both happening and caused by humans, there's very little chance they're wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What would scientists know about climate change? Every climate-skeptic knows their own gut feeling about left-wing conspiracies far outweighs anything these so-called "science people" might come up with...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits, yes, and a whole lotta folks besides just the Jews are offended by the analogy you just stole from the atheist Dawkins... who now says that he's misunderstood about that statement and the controversey he created.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1,700 UK scientists back climate science= Tony Blair backing Bush !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strangely the article makes no mention of over 32,000 scientists who have signed the statement against the global warming hypothesis.

But that apart, since when is scientific inquiry closed, when some people decide so, anyway? That kind of religious dogmatism belongs into middle ages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al Gore has changed the meanin' of 'scientific model' and many progressives and leftists agree with him.

In sum: Just say you're claims are correct. The discussion is over. Walk out of the room.

This new method saves a whole bunch of time, I'll give ya that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, props to the editor here. You are doing your part to help fight off the imminent inundation we face. The deniers need to be rounded up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Make a Google search right now about Amazon forest drought, you'll see how humans are changing the climate locally right now, in a continental scale. And those in denial are backing governments that are pro-deforestation, like Brazil and Indonesia. Everyday a piece of forest the size of 10 football fields disappears under man-made fires.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want to keep this on-topic by saying that the reaction of many in the U.S. to global climate change is another in a very long series of warning signs ignored. Just in recent history there is an abundance of examples: Arthur Leavitt reporting to Congress on the dangers of accounting companies providing consulting services to the firms they are supposed to be auditing -- which led to the Enron/Arthur Andersen debacle. Bush's national security director being handed a report titled "Bin Laden Prepared to Attack United States" and going to sleep at the switch.

Regarding the environment, you'll find many examples of conservatives arguing against the dangers of DDT, asbestos, lead in gasoline, and cigarette smoking at various times in history. The pattern is always the same: A small group of scientists analyze and articulate the danger; they then convince an ever growing number of other scientists -- always in the face of conservatives arguing with flimsy, flawed, or no science whatsoever that the dangers are overblown. (Because change will interfere with business as usual.)

I have come to find the views of those conservatives on the lunatic fringe very useful in this regard. I have coined the term Klink effect to describe their usefulness, named after Col. Wilhelm Klink of the old show Hogan's Heroes. When an Allied bomb fell into the camp, Klink ordered Hogan's men to defuse it. It came down to the cutting of one of two wires. Hogan asked Klink which one he would cut and, after receiving Klink's reply, proceeded to cut the other wire.

In summary, when the loony conservative tells you there's nothing to this global climate change/human activity you can practically take to the bank that there is something to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

Of course they are backing it - everyone of them has a job for life and a big pension from the bloated UK public sector - as long as people keep believing their global warming crap.

I wish Scotland WAS getting warmer - it's bleeding sub-zero here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man... Show you guys a picture of a 'cute' polar bear on an ice floe and you can be led anywhere.

Heh, heh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, you mean there aren't NASA scientists and climatologists and a whole bunch of other folks who legitmately question anthropological global warmin'?

Whoops, I forgot... Your junk science hasn't backed everything you willingly believed about that so now its 'climate change'.

Just how far does that sand go down, yabits?

ROTFLMAO

Heh, heh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you mean there aren't NASA scientists and climatologists and a whole bunch of other folks who legitmately question anthropological global warmin'?

The following needs to be restated, because it sailed over some heads here:

Regarding the environment, you'll find many examples of conservatives arguing against the dangers of DDT, asbestos, lead in gasoline, and cigarette smoking at various times in history. The pattern is always the same: A small group of scientists analyze and articulate the danger; they then convince an ever growing number of other scientists -- always in the face of conservatives arguing with flimsy, flawed, or no science whatsoever that the dangers are overblown.

When lead was introduced as an additive to gasoline, there were plenty of reputable scientists who claimed that doing so would have no detrimental impact on health. The same went for the introduction of DDT as a "miracle" pesticide.

We are in a rather late stage of the cycle with the reaction towards the evidence of human impact on climate change. Actually, the number of "NASA scientists and climatologists" who deny the evidence are becoming fewer and fewer with each passing year. What we are now witnessing from the denial side is being dominaged by the shrill and sarcastic voices of the bitter-enders, fringe lunatics, and other long-time losers -- the Klinks of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Strangely the article makes no mention of over 32,000 scientists who have signed the statement against the global warming hypothesis."

A scientist who signs a statement against a hypothesis is not a scientist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Of course they are backing it - everyone of them has a job for life and a big pension from the bloated UK public sector - as long as people keep believing their global warming crap."

This is real genius. As if every scientist is interviewed every year and if they give the wrong answers they face financial disaster. ORLY? How many scientists believe in virgin birth, the parting of the Red Sea, and reincarnation? They keep their jobs.

"I wish Scotland WAS getting warmer - it's bleeding sub-zero here."

YukYuk. Another refutation. It is cold outside today, so global warming MUST be huge human mistake. Go to the ocean and tell me how there are no deserts. You had better start panicking and buying tomatoes because there aren't any in the garden. Global warming is not your television newscast. It is an explanation for long term trends.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is real genius.

Nice to get recognition for it - thanks!

YukYuk. Another refutation. It is cold outside today, so global warming You had better start panicking and buying tomatoes because there aren't any in the garden. Global warming is not your television newscast. It is an explanation for long term trends.

You certainly swallowed it - what's it like being gullible ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All these gov regulations to come are going to make a lot of people rich. its no longer of which science is correct! Both sides, keep swallowing what ever you've been told as there is a market on both sides of the fence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I reckon they are all in the pocket of Big Gore!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The climate always changes and has always changed throughout the history of the planet Earth. CO2 makes up a very tiny percentage of the atmosphere and human emissions add an even tinier amount. There is a lot of money to be had by scientists and control to be had by left leaning politicians. We shouldn't waste trillions on stopping the Earths climate from changing because it is not possible. In the past humans were smart enough to adapt when the climate changed; now we are too stupid to even consider doing so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

speedpacket:

" A scientist who signs a statement against a hypothesis is not a scientist. "

The 32000+ who signed the petition are disagreeing with the content of the global warming hypothesis.

Again, a scientific debate is not ever "settled", just because one group says so. (Especially when we can see the scheming that went on among that group, thanks to Climategate.)

This whole agenda is promoted like a religion, not like science.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll say one thing on the side that is against all of this and that is if you eat meat, you are the biggest part of the problem.

This whole agenda is promoted like a religion, not like science" But its great for business

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A scientist who signs a statement against a hypothesis is not a scientist.

Of course. If a person dares to question the new religion, they aren't really scientists. However if they falsify data, hide their data, delete data, interfere with the process of peer review, and otherwise do everything they can to intimidate others into silence, then, and only then are they 'scientists' Oh wait, I forgot, they have to get the right results. Always interesting to see the hysterics responses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regarding the environment, you'll find many examples of conservatives arguing against the dangers of DDT, asbestos, lead in gasoline, and cigarette smoking at various times in history. The pattern is always the same: A small group of scientists analyze and articulate the danger; they then convince an ever growing number of other scientists -- always in the face of conservatives arguing with flimsy, flawed, or no science whatsoever that the dangers are overblown.

I have to jump in here and comment. The dangers of DDT and asbestos are overblown. Particularly on DDT. Asbestos, I grant you that while the number of people who are susceptible to mesothelioma caused by asbestos is extremely small, nevertheless it is a cause. DDT however has never been shown conclusively to have the effects claimed. In fact the studies conducted, way back when showed the opposite. While the eco-nuts have to keep pushing DDT as it was their first big 'win', the fact of the matter is, that the EPAs own reports showed it wasn't harmful, but the head of the EPA overruled everyone and simply declared it to be so.

This is not a conservative versus liberal issue. This gets into truth versus fiction. And is part of the current problem we're having. Politics using science to advance an agenda. It doesn't matter if the science is sound. Its not. Theres no real solid, concrete evidence to support AGW. Everything is inferred. Mankind puts out tons of CO2, CO2 causes global warming (assumed), therefore mankind causes global warming (unsupported result) The only thing we know for sure, is that mankind actually does put out CO2, and that that CO2 doesn't just have no impact at all. What impact it has, is up for debate. Everything else is nothing more then hot air and speculation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites