posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:46 AM
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Originally posted by wittgenstein
“You keep asking me to read when you yourself do not read. All of these organization fall under the UNS. WHY in the world would they go against the
authority they fall under? Is is a conspiracy that police officers follow the orders of the sergeant?”
AHH, there we have it! They are all working together to promote a lie! Scientific American, National Geographic, NASA,
en.wikipedia.org... and of course EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and international
I’d imagine that when you said uns you meant en.wikipedia.org... The American Meteorological Association, NASA, the Royal
Academy… are part of the UN??????
Dude, USE THE QUOTE BUTTON!!!!
EVERY scientific organization in the world, eh?
That's an outright falsification. Please list for us, every single organization that irrefutably claims that global warming is man-made? Do you
understand the difference between an assertion and a confirmation? A theory/hypothesis and experimental affirmation? I would bet not...
Here is my list of over 30,000 scientists that say otherwise.
I've watched you post the same sources over and over again, most of which come from Wikipedia, which in itself asks for input and feedback to confirm
facts. You are spewing opinionated rhetoric all over this thread and I respectfully ask that you back your claims up with some facts, because frankly,
I don't believe you have any.
edit on 6-9-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
Seriously, why do people like you not ACTUALLY verify things? It just boggles the mind, when you consider how condescending you are, and how much you
PRETEND to only be following the facts.
The Oregon Petition is a very duboius petition.
Well, for one thing, it misrepresents or at leasts misleads people, in that it appears to be connected to the National Academy of Sciences, to the
point where NAS complained about it publicly.
The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from
a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol
to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was
mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do
with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other
The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.
On top of that, MANY of it's signatories have changed their mind:
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we
were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such
petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate
researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
So, Scientific American was able to follow-up and find that, of the 30K, only 200 were ACTUALLY climate scientists and of those, 8 out of 11, didn't
actually, "evaluate the relevant data," but instead, "signed based on an informal evaluation".
Kinda like the way Seitz, himself made up his mind, as he WAS NOT a CLIMATE SCIENTIST.
Let's quote one of his friends:
Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a
specialist in this field.”
“Most top scientists in the field disagreed with him, I among them"
More info here: en.wikipedia.org...
I'd rather someone have facts than know how to use the quote button... though a combo of both is nice.