The decline and eventual fall of the USA as world superpower?

[Brian]

Works for me, unless you are proposing to eliminate influence by unions, newspapers, TV networks, and "Progressive" organizations, too. Actually, regardless of whether you are proposing squashing free expression by the neo-feudalistic as well -- I oppose self-righteous government manipulation and oppression as a matter of principle.

[Brian]

THIS, on the other hand, I find very disturbing:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/215909101/EPA-Human-Study-Subjects

[joeblast]

 

 

 

 

 

Sure sure, and Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, they were all appointed strictly on their qualifications Cmon ralis, one of these days you gotta burn that blue team shirt and realize that both teams have the same owners, who cares if they have different coaches?

[zerostao]

keeping on granting money extended influence and rights isnt bothersome to ya'll?

we are heading back to a time when money was law

and anyone who had more money could have anyone with less tossed into prison on a whim.

this is historical fact and the direction we are currently heading.

[ralis]

Works for me, unless you are proposing to eliminate influence by unions, newspapers, TV networks, and "Progressive" organizations, too. Actually, regardless of whether you are proposing squashing free expression by the neo-feudalistic as well -- I oppose self-righteous government manipulation and oppression as a matter of principle.

 

You right wing types always attack the unions and fail to mention the good; such as elimination of sweat shops, improved working conditions, decent wages etc. I guess the working people that take care of the commons, build your shit that is consumed by you and everyone else are low lifes in your mind. If you know anything in regards to history, Hitler and Mussolini both got rid of the unions. Why? Unions were viewed as a threat to their power structure.

[joeblast]

...conveniently leaving out that Unions are their own power structure/lobby/etc with the ability to spend a virtually unlimited amount of their worker donations dues scalpings yeah however you want to describe that...but hey, no problems with that.

 

good to see you use the same measuring stick for all applications, ralis does blue lens red lens ever get tiring on your eyes?

[ralis]

...conveniently leaving out that Unions are their own power structure/lobby/etc with the ability to spend a virtually unlimited amount of their worker donations dues scalpings yeah however you want to describe that...but hey, no problems with that.

 

good to see you use the same measuring stick for all applications, ralis does blue lens red lens ever get tiring on your eyes?

 

I guess you support an oligarchy with unlimited amounts of money which equals free speech. I would appreciate that you stop the bullying!

[ralis]

To all anti union persons. I bet you drive a vehicle that was made by a union and have many useful items including appliances etc. made by unions. Stop driving on highways that were made by union members. While you are at it, the next time you are in a commercial building, that to was probably built by unions.

[joeblast]

lol...trust me ralis, I dont really seriously think I will actually change your already made up mind, not about me, not about the blue team, not about the mythically proposed warming coefficient of carbon dioxide. it is easy as shooting fish in a barrel, pointing out your inconsistencies while you sit and grasp at straws and try to ascribe any number of beliefs to me. you say you dont read huffpo, but your "insults" come just about verbatim from there.

Edited April 3, 2014 by joeblast

[Brian]

 

You right wing types always attack the unions and fail to mention the good; such as elimination of sweat shops, improved working conditions, decent wages etc. I guess the working people that take care of the commons, build your shit that is consumed by you and everyone else are low lifes in your mind. If you know anything in regards to history, Hitler and Mussolini both got rid of the unions. Why? Unions were viewed as a threat to their power structure.

As seems so often to be the case, ralis, you guess wrong.

 

Not only did I NOT attack unions (even though my personal research shows most of the gains they claim responsibility for cannot be laid at their feet) but I also didn't infer that there is a correlation between job and human value -- YOU make that inference.

 

I grew up in a "don't have enough" family, with a union schoolteacher mom and a union policeman dad, both loyal Democrats. Several years after my father left us (my mother raising four kids on her own), she married my union firefighter step-father, also a loyal Democrat. All three of them changed their views of both unions and the Democrat party during their lifetimes as a result of observing and learning.

 

(Heck, my father and his father before him (also a staunch Democrat union cop) were card-carrying members of that Democrat institution known as the Klan. My grandfather died young but my father left the Klan, became a Republican, actively fought the establishment (including grand-jury testimony against the FBI) and actually was seeing a black therapist in his later years to help with overcoming childhood racist indoctrination (done by "liberals") and PTSD).

 

When I was in school, I qualified for the "free lunch" program but chose to take peanut-butter or bologna sandwiches instead because there were others who "really needed the help." Took me ten years to work my way through my undergraduate studies on my own dime. During that time, I worked construction, worked in groundskeeping, worked in factories, worked in restaurants and hotels, worked for a moving company, etc. There were years when I chopped & split my own firewood because I couldn't afford any other form of heat. There were times when I lived on rice or beans because rice AND beans was above my budget. There were times when I biked the 11 miles to the university (in the mountains) because I couldn't afford to put gas in my $200 car, or couldn't afford to get it fixed. I remember going to university with my boots held together with duct-tape.

 

I've got a sister who is a social worker (as is my wife), another who is a nurse, a brother who is a construction worker and another who retired from the USAF as a Master Sargent. Sound like a silver-spoon family to you?

 

Where do you get off with your class warfare aspersions and insinuations, ralis??? Have any idea how bigoted and intolerant you sound to me?

Edited April 3, 2014 by Brian

[silent thunder]

As the wave pushes upward, it necessarily crumbles under its own weight.

Yin spontaneously manifests within Yang.

Tide's shifting quickly now.

[joeblast]

and I'm sure ralis doesnt want to hear about the union reps calling the house and telling them to make sure they vote for this guy or that guy, because "its important we all stick together" my gram would always hang up and never tell my grandfather they called.

[Brian]

and I'm sure ralis doesnt want to hear about the union reps calling the house and telling them to make sure they vote for this guy or that guy, because "its important we all stick together" my gram would always hang up and never tell my grandfather they called.

Gets better than that! Had a representative of the local firefighters "association" call me recently to demand a contribution because "it would be a shame if your house caught fire and they weren't able to respond in time."

[ralis]

lol...trust me ralis, I dont really seriously think I will actually change your already made up mind, not about me, not about the blue team, not about the mythically proposed warming coefficient of carbon dioxide. it is easy as shooting fish in a barrel, pointing out your inconsistencies while you sit and grasp at straws and try to ascribe any number of beliefs to me. you say you dont read huffpo, but your "insults" come just about verbatim from there.

 

I state facts as opposed to authoritarian propaganda that some have bought into. Furthermore, your rants in regards to so called coefficient errors by climatologists is a non sequitor and would never be considered by reputable research groups. Say all you want, but you and your group of deniers have no say whatsoever in the conversation.

[ralis]

Gets better than that! Had a representative of the local firefighters "association" call me recently to demand a contribution because "it would be a shame if your house caught fire and they weren't able to respond in time."

 

Therefor, that makes all unions suspect?

[Brian]

Many thousands of scientists would say otherwise, ralis, myself included -- in fact, EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST with whom I have personally had discussions on the topic has said otherwise.

 

Here's a list of more than 30 thousand of them: http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

And, for those who lean towards Wikipedia, here's a partial list of some highlighted folks there:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

##Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[16]

##Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [17]

##Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[18][19][20]

##Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[21]

##Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[22]

##Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[23]

##Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[24]

##Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [25]

##Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[26]

 

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[28]

##Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[29][30]

##Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[31]

##Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[32]

##Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]

##Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[34]

##David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[35]

##Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[36]

##William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[37]

##William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[38]

##Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[39]

##Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[40]

##William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[41]

##David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[42]

##Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]

##Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]

##Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]

##Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]

##Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[48]

##Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]

##Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[51]

##Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]

##Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]

##Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]

##Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[57]

##George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]

##Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

 

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]

##Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]

##Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]

##John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]

##Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]

##David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]

##Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]

##Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]

##Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]

##Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]

 

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]

##Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]

##Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Brian]

 

Therefor, that makes all unions suspect?

Did I say that or did you assume it?

[joeblast]

I state facts as opposed to authoritarian propaganda that some have bought into. Furthermore, your rants in regards to so called coefficient errors by climatologists is a non sequitor and would never be considered by reputable research groups. Say all you want, but you and your group of deniers have no say whatsoever in the conversation.

When your job grant money depends on your "obtaining the "right" answer," then dammit, you'd better be right, otherwise we might not have the money to invest in your musings any further. Oh, and that tenure you were close to having...cmon, its a joke.

 

"Fact" obtained by statistical malfeasance is not fact, sorry to burst your bubble there. Ergo the "authoritarian propaganda" as usual is coming from the side that has the most money thrown at it, coincidence it is the side the government is on, the side that has the ability to levy tax on us based on these findings? No conflicts of interest there at all? (and dont even try to argue something stupid like koch money>gov money, it aint even close when you follow the money and consider any and all funds and not "what was spent by a few private individuals.")

 

And yes, great pains were undertaken to attempt to ensure that "deniers" had no say in the conversation - but hey, nothing amiss in east anglia or Penn st, right? No whitewash there! Matter of fact, we need to prosecute whomever whistleblew the truth hacked teh mainframez!

 

Therefor, that makes all unions suspect?

Pesky thing about pattern behavior and stereotype, they often travel in pairs...

[Brian]

 

You right wing types always attack the unions and fail to mention the good; such as elimination of sweat shops, improved working conditions, decent wages etc. I guess the working people that take care of the commons, build your shit that is consumed by you and everyone else are low lifes in your mind. If you know anything in regards to history, Hitler and Mussolini both got rid of the unions. Why? Unions were viewed as a threat to their power structure.

As an aside, Italian syndicalists like Olivetti, Panunzio and Orano joined the Fascist Party because they viewed corporativism as a logical stepping stone on the pathway to socialism. Over time, however, corporatism came to be viewed as a destination rather than a waypoint.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Brian

[joeblast]

because corporations dont necessarily have to give any pretense of loyalty to anyone or nation, whereas governments do (or should, at least.) so if you're planning to set up a one world government above all others, hell, cant be loyal to a single government. take over the big ones and step on the rest of them. hence the reason they created the federal reserve...

[ralis]

Many thousands of scientists would say otherwise, ralis, myself included -- in fact, EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST with whom I have personally had discussions on the topic has said otherwise.

 

Here's a list of more than 30 thousand of them: http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

And, for those who lean towards Wikipedia, here's a partial list of some highlighted folks there:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

##Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[16]

##Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [17]

##Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[18][19][20]

##Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[21]

##Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[22]

##Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[23]

##Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[24]

##Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [25]

##Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[26]

 

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[28]

##Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[29][30]

##Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[31]

##Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[32]

##Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]

##Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[34]

##David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[35]

##Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[36]

##William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[37]

##William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[38]

##Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[39]

##Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[40]

##William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[41]

##David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[42]

##Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]

##Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]

##Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]

##Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]

##Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[48]

##Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]

##Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[51]

##Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]

##Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]

##Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]

##Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[57]

##George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]

##Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

 

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]

##Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]

##Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]

##John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]

##Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]

##David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]

##Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]

##Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]

##Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]

##Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]

 

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]

##Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]

##Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

I know about the petition and that has nothing to do with the body of work compiled by peer reviewed work. I know the facts and persons such as yourself that do not accept the science, are directly responsible for delaying and implementing solutions.

 

How many of these have published research in peer reviewed journals as opposed to popular science rags or paid shills for oil companies? I don't care as to what curriculum vitae each stated individual above has, but what body of work each has compiled as opposed to cherry picking which is not science but propaganda.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

When I say that I know the facts around the science is because I have researched both sides of the debate.

[ralis]

As seems so often to be the case, ralis, you guess wrong.

 

Not only did I NOT attack unions (even though my personal research shows most of the gains they claim responsibility for cannot be laid at their feet) but I also didn't infer that there is a correlation between job and human value -- YOU make that inference.

 

I grew up in a "don't have enough" family, with a union schoolteacher mom and a union policeman dad, both loyal Democrats. Several years after my father left us (my mother raising four kids on her own), she married my union firefighter step-father, also a loyal Democrat. All three of them changed their views of both unions and the Democrat party during their lifetimes as a result of observing and learning.

 

(Heck, my father and his father before him (also a staunch Democrat union cop) were card-carrying members of that Democrat institution known as the Klan. My grandfather died young but my father left the Klan, became a Republican, actively fought the establishment (including grand-jury testimony against the FBI) and actually was seeing a black therapist in his later years to help with overcoming childhood racist indoctrination (done by "liberals") and PTSD).

 

When I was in school, I qualified for the "free lunch" program but chose to take peanut-butter or bologna sandwiches instead because there were others who "really needed the help." Took me ten years to work my way through my undergraduate studies on my own dime. During that time, I worked construction, worked in groundskeeping, worked in factories, worked in restaurants and hotels, worked for a moving company, etc. There were years when I chopped & split my own firewood because I couldn't afford any other form of heat. There were times when I lived on rice or beans because rice AND beans was above my budget. There were times when I biked the 11 miles to the university (in the mountains) because I couldn't afford to put gas in my $200 car, or couldn't afford to get it fixed. I remember going to university with my boots held together with duct-tape.

 

I've got a sister who is a social worker (as is my wife), another who is a nurse, a brother who is a construction worker and another who retired from the USAF as a Master Sargent. Sound like a silver-spoon family to you?

 

Where do you get off with your class warfare aspersions and insinuations, ralis??? Have any idea how bigoted and intolerant you sound to me?

 

Class warfare? I said nothing about class but was defending the rights provided in the Constitution for persons or groups to engage in contracts which is what unions do.

 

Explain to me where I have made bigoted remarks. Post quotes of such remarks.

[ralis]

Many thousands of scientists would say otherwise, ralis, myself included -- in fact, EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST with whom I have personally had discussions on the topic has said otherwise.

 

Here's a list of more than 30 thousand of them: http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

And, for those who lean towards Wikipedia, here's a partial list of some highlighted folks there:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

##Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[16]

##Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [17]

##Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[18][19][20]

##Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[21]

##Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[22]

##Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[23]

##Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[24]

##Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [25]

##Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[26]

 

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[28]

##Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[29][30]

##Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[31]

##Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[32]

##Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]

##Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[34]

##David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[35]

##Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[36]

##William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[37]

##William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[38]

##Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[39]

##Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[40]

##William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[41]

##David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[42]

##Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]

##Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]

##Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]

##Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]

##Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[48]

##Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]

##Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[51]

##Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]

##Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]

##Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]

##Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[57]

##George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]

##Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

 

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]

##Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]

##Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]

##John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]

##Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]

##David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]

##Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]

##Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]

##Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]

##Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]

 

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

 

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

##Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]

##Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]

##Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

I have had a number of discussions with scientists/physicists from Los Alamos National Labs and they are not in agreement with you. We could carry on this argument ad infinitum, which serves no purpose. Most of the propaganda has been put in the mainstream to create division and doubt among persons with little or no critical thinking skills.

 

This statement on the petition site seems a bit disjointed to me.

 

 

Purpose of Petition

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

Actually, most of the propaganda has been been put in the mainstream to squelch discussion and convince the non-scientific population that "the science is settled" when, in fact, that very phrase is as close to one can come to heresy among the objective scientific community.

 

This same tactic is used by authoritarians as a stock in trade on a variety of topics.

 

Alinsky would be pleased.