Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked

[forrestkc]

Brother Forrest,

I have a question.

Do you feel that as an ends to a means that terms like, "Denier," are acceptable?

How about the removal of credentials to those who oppose this viewpoint and worldview?

Peace,

Dave

A skeptic is someone that has looked at both sides of an issue, and objectively concluded that they do not support the said contingency while still being objective enough to remain open minded.

A denier is someone that has a preconceived notion, never considers the evidence behind a contention, and is an individual that no amount of evidence would convince otherwise.

Thus denier is a perfectly appropriate term.

For example, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientific theory backed by multiple lines of evidence. It is not a philosophy, a theology, or a worldview. An objective individual evaluates the merits of a scientific theory regardless of their personal philosophy, religious beliefs, or worldview. Especially when you consider that this is not a theory like evolution that does come into conflict with religious beliefs.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

How do you know that a, "denier", hasn't objectively analyzed the data or not prior to labeling them? Is your standard based upon the fact that they may or may not have taken money from certain corporations that you deem may be part of the problem?

Who are you to dictate whether or not Exxon has the right notions in mind when they grant research funds?

Can't the complete polar opposite be said of those whom are propagating this mythology? How is Al Gore to be trusted when he clearly has an objective and a motive?

Am I a denier Forrest? Have I arrived at my beliefs on this subject matter due to a pre-conceived notion?

It is not a philosophy, a theology, or a worldview.

I disagree whole heartedly. Know why, like a good drama it has it's villians and it's hero's. It has those who can't and aren't to be trusted and that is determined not by fact but by whether or not you solely agree with the premise and there is to be no debate about it, No opposing voice. That my brother is dangerous and based upon emotion and not fact.

Peace,

Dave

[Axxman]

All they did was list the official credentials of every individual listed. How is that a sham? That is what Inhofe should have done if he were actually looking to be intellectually honest.

Incorrect...they omitted facts and in doing so committed character assassination. Just because a person is "retired" doesn't mean they are not perfectly qualified. If a weatherman is is certified by the AMS and has a Bachelor of science degree in meteorology and you leave it out to bolster your position...you undermine your own credibility. When you ignore the qualifications of people merely because of their funding source and attempt to slander their work because of it...well, that works both ways.

The entire body of work of Mr Hercules is a sham because he is a liar by omission of certain important facts. Furthermore, he can only attack a portion of the 413 and disqulaify them through his lies...which means that any reasonable person has to conclude that the remaining persons he didn't address are highly qualified and beyond reproach as he couldn't even make up a lie about them.

[kari21]

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

The inconvenient truth about your link, is that the site is ran by Steve Milloy. Now, the question of course, is Steve Milloy a scientist? No, he isn't. He is a paid lobbyist for the oil and chemical industries.

Why believe a paid lobbyist over say The National Academies of Science. Thats like giving more weight to the medical advice of a Crack Dealer than your Doctor.

Instead of attacking Mr. Milloy, prove the science used to be in error.

[forrestkc]

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

The inconvenient truth about your link, is that the site is ran by Steve Milloy. Now, the question of course, is Steve Milloy a scientist? No, he isn't. He is a paid lobbyist for the oil and chemical industries.

Why believe a paid lobbyist over say The National Academies of Science. Thats like giving more weight to the medical advice of a Crack Dealer than your Doctor.

Instead of attacking Mr. Milloy, prove the science used to be in error.

Sure, the day that Mr. Milloy actually publishing even so much as a word in a scientific journal, I will address his argument. Thats the problem. He doesn't. Why should the propaganda put out by a paid lobbyist carry more weight that the official positions of The National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Society, the American Meteorological Society, and every scientific society in the modern world with climate expertise?

If someone honestly believes that all of those esteemed scientific societies are engaged in some massive conspiracy then they seriously need to see a psychiatrist.

I have made the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming on here before several times. It addressed all of the misinformation that lobbyists like Milloy put out. You guys never read any of it, so why bother doing it again. In fact, generally the canned response is something along the lines of "God is in control, he won't let it happen". Arguments like that make one wonder why we have free will, or at told to be stewards of creation. Thankfully, we don't take such an absurd attitude in matters of national defense.

[forrestkc]

Grace to you,

How do you know that a, "denier", hasn't objectively analyzed the data or not prior to labeling them? Is your standard based upon the fact that they may or may not have taken money from certain corporations that you deem may be part of the problem?

Because they virtually never publish anything on the subject in any journal.

Who are you to dictate whether or not Exxon has the right notions in mind when they grant research funds?

They don't actually grant research funds on Anthropogenic Global Warming. If they did, you would have a point. Instead the simply fund propaganda groups that put out misinformation on the subject.

Can't the complete polar opposite be said of those whom are propagating this mythology? How is Al Gore to be trusted when he clearly has an objective and a motive?

Because unlike deniers, he is simply repeating the scientific consensus. He has all of science behind him. Its not as though he is inventing this.

Am I a denier Forrest? Have I arrived at my beliefs on this subject matter due to a pre-conceived notion?

I am certain that you have. I seriously doubt you have looked at the IPCC findings on this issue, but rather how they were characterized by the skeptics / deniers.

[Guest]

Being that the handful of deniers left out there were constantly caught in these kind of lies and deceptions

You Got That Right!

Even Nursery Rhymes Get It!

Whether the Weather be Fine

By Anonymous

Whether the weather be fine

Or whether the weather be not,

Whether the weather be cold

Or whether the weather be hot,

We'll weather the weather

Whatever the weather,

Whether we like it or not.

http://www.indiaparenting.com/rhymes/english/re018.shtml

No Denying That!

[kari21]

I have made the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming on here before several times. It addressed all of the misinformation that lobbyists like Milloy put out. You guys never read any of it, so why bother doing it again.

Because we've heard all the propaganda before. And despite what you like to claim, the issue is not settled in the scientific community.

And besides, this world is passing away anyway. There's a new world coming, forrestkc. Get with the program...

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I am certain that you have. I seriously doubt you have looked at the IPCC findings on this issue, but rather how they were characterized by the skeptics / deniers.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, it's all I need to hear.

The more I hear from you Forrest, the less I want to live in your America. You quite actually scare me.

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

I have made the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming on here before several times. It addressed all of the misinformation that lobbyists like Milloy put out. You guys never read any of it, so why bother doing it again.

Because we've heard all the propaganda before. And despite what you like to claim, the issue is not settled in the scientific community.

And besides, this world is passing away anyway. There's a new world coming, forrestkc. Get with the program...

That last remark sounds rather cultish or something. The world has been here for some 4 Billion years. Christ could return tomorrow, or at any other point in the next few billion years. We have to conduct ourselves as though we are going to be here our entire life and leave this world for generations to come. One of these days you and I and the rest of us will grow old, and we will all want to leave our grandchildren a better world. Moreover, do you honestly believe that public policy should be based in subjective interpretations of biblical prophecy, or should it be based in the best available science?

As to the issue not being settled in the scientific community, if its not settled, then please quote an article or study from any major peer reviewed journal that calls the basic theory into question. If there is so much debate in the scientific community on this, then it should be easy to do, yet no one seems to be able to do so.

Here is the link to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/

Here is the link to Journal Nature: http://www.nature.com/index.html

Here is the link to the American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/

Certainly you will find plenty of examples of scientists challenging this theory in one of those journals if indeed the basic theory is not settled. I will save you some time though. You see someone already did that and published the results in Science.

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" ( 9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Think about that, there is all this supposed debate on this is issue in scientific circles, yet, out of 938 abstracts published in 10 years on Global Warming, not one single scientist disagreed with the consensus position. What more evidence could you possibly want?