The scientists who say global warming is not true--Are they credible?

[ecstatic]

The issue is so controversial that I don't know where to research for the right information.

Who are the scientists that Bush is relying on for his information about global warming? Are they credible, and what are their educational backgrounds?

What is wrong with erring on the side of caution when it comes to our *only* planet?

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Do you believe you eyes

If you do go Alaska

[Botany]

2. Glacier on top of .....

..... Mt. Kilimanjaro .... eos

[acmejack]

3. How can they possibly be credible?

Go to the Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/ or the Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp and you will see the concensus of informed scientific thought!

[PATRICK]

4. The only credible dissent

is the one that bends the interpretation away from human influence and exact predictions toward what the RW wants to hear. You can only deny so much before you enter crackpot on-the-take territory or ostracized. The scientific community has ego and partisan splits all over and takes a lot of money from corporate research sources.

Even so, the best they can do from what I have seen IS to force some ego-wounded contrarian, Edward Teller-like, to become a touted champion against the majority(who eschew absolute terms and have to accept criticism as part of the scientific process). You would think it actually would be worse than idiotic media alone filtering feel good corporate crap, but your local RW weatherman is more a disinformer than the scientific community.

Bending therefore is what is all about. I love the ultimate scenario admissions.

OK, global warming is good because it will create a lush tropical paradise. By admission they know then that nature will have to be "spun" all the way to whatever conclusion it takes. When it is so bad they have to stop spinning and slink away....

[kansasblue]

5. I wonder too

where those scientists come from. Is there really evidence to the contrary? But the rest of the world is solidly convinced that we are warming and it's a major problem. There are tons of examples. I think Alaska might be out best example.

[Lone_Wolf]

6. As credible as the tobacco industry scientists who say there is no...

evidence to link lung cancer with smoking

[fla nocount]

7. Bordering countries are already negotiating land rights and sea routes

across what is now the Arctic. The US is involved in these negotiations and speculations. Google up something along the lines of future polar sea routes or new arctic land masses/Greenland. Either of those will get you started.........take a lunch, you'll be awhile.

[dogday]

8. McCain said he has seen it and is concerned....

[BillZBubb]

9. No, they are not credible.

Remember there are also scientists who say evolution is false. There were scientists who said cigarettes weren't harmful, etc.

Most of the scientists who say global warming is not true are either on the payroll of oil companies or other business interests whose bottom line would be effected by change. There are a few in academia who have based their conclusions on scant contrary evidence. So far that evidence has always been discredited upon close examination.

For the most part the "anti-warming" crowd has now moved the goalposts. They now almost all admit the earth is warming. The evidence really is overwhelming on that. But now they claim it's a natural phenomenon and that human activity has no effect.

As for Bush, he's not relying on any scientists. He does what the oil industry wants him to do. The guy "editting" the BushCo environmental reports on warming wasn't a scientist, he was an oil company PR hack. All the government scientists were saying global warming is real.

[Warpy]

10. Global warming is a FACT

The only debate among genuine scientists is about the mechanism.

Bush is relying on faith based pseudoscience. If the data don't support one's faith, then the data are in error and must be discarded.

This is a constant theme in all the government's scientific agencies.

[K-W]

11. The days where this was a controversy in science are pretty much over.

Its only controversial now because energy companies insist on making it so.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. No more credible than "scientists" who say oil is not a fossil fuel.

The only debate is whether human activity is responsible for global warming (and analysis of ice cores and tree rings indicates that it is), or whether this is simply part of the planet's normal climate cycle (which is plausible, given the length of time since the last ice age, but again unsupported by the best evidence available).

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. A few have credible qualifications

Richard Lindzen is a professor of meteorology at MIT, and he thinks that human contributions to warming are negligible.

John Christy is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama. He has said that satellite measurements do not show the temperature increases that global warming models say should have happened by now; but his postition seems to be softening a bit. Roy Spencer, a former NASA climate scientist also at Alabama, worked with him on the satellite data.

Most of the others are people who take issue with the statistical analyses, rather than experts in climate.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html">here is quite a good summary of those who deny global warming.

[NMMNG]

14. Don't rely on Shrubbie's sources

They are falsifying and covering up the truth. Here is an article from "The Week" on just that:

Contrary to popular belief, the Bush administration really does have a policy on global warming, said the Houston Chronicle in an editorial. It can be summarized in one neat sentence: “See no warming, hear no warming, speak no warming.” Every other industrialized nation has acknowledged that Earth is heating up due to man-made gases. Just last week, the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and 10 other scientific organizations from around the world warned that global warming is “the greatest danger facing humanity,” and urged nations to reduce industrial and auto emissions before it’s too late. If emissions continue at current levels, scientists say, the planet could heat up by 2 to 10 degrees centigrade by century’s end, with cataclysmic climactic consequences. Already, mountains are losing their snowcaps, polar ice is melting, and sea levels are rising. President Bush, though, is sticking with his global-warming mantra: “We want to know more about it.”

Actually, he doesn’t, said The New York Times in an editorial, and now there’s proof. A White House whistle-blower has released documents showing that an administration official, Philip Cooney, has been doctoring U.S. government reports to weaken the evidence for global warming. In one report, Cooney inserted the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” to create doubt about findings most scientists think are solid. In another, he removed a section about the loss of mountain glaciers—calling it too “speculative.” Cooney isn’t even a scientist. Before Bush hired him as his chief of environmental policy, Cooney led the American Petroleum Institute’s campaign to cast doubt on global warming. This week, after his spin-doctoring became public, Cooney resigned. But the administration is holding firm to its pro-industry position.

It should, said Robert Novak in the Chicago Sun-Times. The world’s preferred solution to global warming is the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates severe reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions. Those limits would send the U.S. economy into a tailspin. The true motive behind Kyoto is “Europeans’ desire to bring U.S. prosperity down to their level,” and Bush knows it. Kyoto’s scientific basis is just as suspect, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Adopting Kyoto’s emissions limits, scientists say, may reduce the anticipated warming by just 1.2 degrees centigrade—at a price tag of $94 trillion. For that kind of money, we could provide clean water to everyone on the planet, wipe out hunger, and get the AIDS epidemic under control. Let’s deal with problems we can actually solve, rather than “devoting limited financial resources” to one that we apparently can’t.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.asp?id=996

[SoCalDem]

15. There are scientists "for sale"..Too bad their own kids and grandkids

will pay for their greed and stupidity:(

[LiberalAndProud]

16. Gotta believe Exxon-Mobile is providing the funding for the "information"

Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups. In total, these organizations received more than $8 million between 2000 and 2003 (the last year for which records are available; all figures below are for that range unless otherwise noted). ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Lee Raymond serves as vice chairman of the board of trustees for the AEI, which received $960,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. The AEI-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, which officially hosted Crichton, received another $55,000. When asked about the event, the center’s executive director, Robert Hahn—who’s a fellow with the AEI—defended it, saying, “Climate science is a field in which reasonable experts can disagree.” (By contrast, on the day of the event, the Brookings Institution posted a scathing critique of Crichton’s book.)

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html