Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

[zathras]

On the whole science doesn't advance by using petitions, more by publishing in peer reviewed journals. Why don't these scientists stick their necks out in the usual way? Mind you I'm not sure such journals would want to publish anything extolling the benefits of (or denying) climate change. Also, these were only American scientists I believe (or peope claiming to be scientists).

It is simply because funds are being directed to proving that AGW exists and denied to those who wish to demonstrate the opposite. Too public a viewpoint that opposes the so called consensue that AGW is a problem which needs solving results in the withdrawal of funds.

[NotAllThere]

You'll burn in Hell

Hell

It meant future generations would be left in a futureless world, he said.

No they won't because they won't exist.

Funny, across the pond, the Bible Belters seem to be siding with the skeptics on this one.

[EternalOptimist]

No they won't because they won't exist.

Funny, across the pond, the Bible Belters seem to be siding with the skeptics on this one.

Thats because there is no point planning for the future if the bible tells you that isnt going to be one. A classic example of people coming to the same conclusion for completely different reasons.

[The Lone Gunman]

Funny, across the pond, the Bible Belters seem to be siding with the skeptics on this one.

That is because they are all rapturists and will support anything that may bring on armagedon.

The Bishop: The irony and hypocrisy of this man quoting on climate change is such that there is not room on the internet to describe it.

[dang65]

Can I just check something here:

Do people posting on this thread actually believe that climate change is not occurring at all, or just that it's not caused by human activity?

I mean, it seems to me that arguing the AGW toss is like standing at the bottom of a cliff and bickering about whether the boulder that's plummeting towards you was caused by walkers wearing out the clifftop footpath or by natural wind erosion.

[TimberWolf]

Can I just check something here:

Do people posting on this thread actually believe that climate change is not occurring at all, or just that it's not caused by human activity?

I mean, it seems to me that arguing the AGW toss is like standing at the bottom of a cliff and bickering about whether the boulder that's plummeting towards you was caused by walkers wearing out the clifftop footpath or by natural wind erosion.

Boulders fall off cliffs whether or not walkers kick them off. 10,000 years ago you could walk to France. Was this a good or bad thing?

[NickFitz]

Boulders fall off cliffs whether or not walkers kick them off. 10,000 years ago you could walk to France. Was this a good or bad thing?

As this implies that the French could walk here, I'll have to go with Bad Thing

[BrilloPad]

As this implies that the French could walk here, I'll have to go with Bad Thing

At one point we had invaded quite alot of France. With easy access would could have overrun the rest.

[The Lone Gunman]

Can I just check something here:

Do people posting on this thread actually believe that climate change is not occurring at all, or just that it's not caused by human activity?

I mean, it seems to me that arguing the AGW toss is like standing at the bottom of a cliff and bickering about whether the boulder that's plummeting towards you was caused by walkers wearing out the clifftop footpath or by natural wind erosion.

I am convinced that global temperatures vary. I am less than convinced that it is man made. Nor am I convinced that man can do anything about changing it.

Your falling rock point is valid, but it is the IPCC and assorted Governments who are too busy proving their point instead of moving out of the way.
There is a Canute like belief that GW can be stopped by taxing polution and carbon offsetting.

[EternalOptimist]

I am convinced that global temperatures vary. I am less than convinced that it is man made. Nor am I convinced that man can do anything about changing it.

Your falling rock point is valid, but it is the IPCC and assorted Governments who are too busy proving their point instead of moving out of the way.
There is a Canute like belief that GW can be stopped by taxing polution and carbon offsetting.

His analogy is also based upon the premise that a rise in temperature is a bad thing, I am unconvinced by that.

Why dont we spend more on building an asteroid detection and destruction mechanism. THAT is a real danger (and its not man made).