[I thought this was very strange...till I saw the link at the bottom of the page and saw that it led to (drumroll please) the Discovery Institute!]
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
16 comments
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
There is no "convincing" scientific evidence that Elvis is dead, either, if you're enough of a nut-job to explain away any evidence presented to the contrary.
1. Atmospheric CO2 is at an, at least, 170,000 year high. It could be 800,000 years.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has risen in direct proportion to measured human emissions since measurements have been taken.
3. Average global temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate.
4. Arctic ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. Far faster than the most dire predictions.
5. Fundies are, at least, as dishonest as energy companies.
Not sure how this is fundie.
Also, um, doesn't that big ball of hydrogen fusion we orbit around have a large effect on our climate, as well?
Actually, the evidence is pretty clear -- CO2, methane, etc ARE having a negative impact on the Earth, *especially* with the deforestation rates so high.
Wait... they capitalized "Earth"... isn't that rather... pagan?
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
So, do you mean contamination is good for the earth now?
A minority opinion on the basis of evidence is NOT Fundie.
It's NOT a case of 'everyone can sign the petition'. Signatories must hold a verified degree in Science to do so. Here are over thirty thousand signatories listed who hold that opinion.
I judge that the skeptics are right. Here's why:
EVERY Global Warming prediction to date has been wrong. Every prediction has failed, from the numbers of hurricanes to the temperatures this year. NONE of the models predicted the freezing to death that Lilith talks about.
In 2008 the planet's temperature is below average - for all records.
There are major problems with the models. They predict a warming effect from CO2 that is 3 times greater than CO2 alone can produce. Their explanation is that there are secondary effects, but they concede they cannot calculate these as accurately as CO2 warming itself. The uncertainty in their cloud-coverage calculations is greater than the amount of change they predict. They ignore the adaptations of the ecosystem to higher temperature and CO2.
Their economics are nonsense.
Their proxy temperature measures do not work for todays temperatures.
When I was in High School it was standard science that a warmer world would be better. I have looked diligently, but the evidence I have seen is not sufficiently compelling to persuade me my teachers were wrong.
On the other hand, I have respected Nigel Calder's science for decades. He and other people I respect are skeptical on the basis of the evidence.
For this and many other reasons, I think they are right.
This is not Fundie. It's not about religion; it is about science, it's not dogmatic and it is evidence-based.
As a minority opinion it may well be a 'darndest thing'- but then so were the views of the American Revolutionaries 3 years before Independence.
Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
Who happen to have an interest in proving Global warming is false.
Personally I think if we had taken the necessary steps in the 70's when this came up, we may have saved ourselves. But now the amount of methane and CO2 being released out of the melting poles isn't going to stop until the poles are melted. Also a lot of the so called "green options" aren't really that green. They're ways of making profit off of people who want to feel good about themselves.
Nobody knows what the long term effects of greenhouse gasses will be since they must be superimposed on a climate roller-coaster that has been oscillating for ages.
image
Looking at the picture, it seems that we are headed into another major episode of glaciation.
None of the "climate change" models incorporate the long-term Milankovitch cycles, which are major driving forces for climate.
In short, nobody KNOWS a damned thing about what direction climate is going. There is much speculation based on short-term evidence and very simple models that fail to incorporate known phenomena that affect climate.
Yes, Global Warming is PROBABLY real, at least in the short term. In the long term, it is still a crapshoot.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.