1 – I assume by saying that scientists in other disciplines have no right to question you are also on record as saying that because all “creation scientists” & representatives of the “science of astroliogy” making a living in their respective disciplines say their respective disciplines are genuine they must be so. I disagree.

2 – The “Union of Concerned Scientists” is open to anybody with $25 & an axe to grind. Perhaps you should tell us what the scientific assesment of the Shriners is – at least they don’t self select for loopiness.

3 – The alarmists cause has most definitely not survived examination eg the IPPCC have withdrawn their claim about the Himalayam glaciers, which provide water to half the world’s population, disappearing in 25 years because it was (A) not a peer reviewed study as claim but an off the cuff remark to a journalist & (B) it was obviously nuts.

The fact is that one of the leaders of this simply refused to let his claims be examined on the grounds that the examiner wanted to test them. That is not science but if Prof Jones had not known it was rubbish he would have had no objection to showing it.

1 – I assume by saying that scientists in other disciplines have no right to question you are also on record as saying that because all “creation scientists” & representatives of the “science of astroliogy” making a living in their respective disciplines say their respective disciplines are genuine they must be so. I disagree.

2 – The “Union of Concerned Scientists” is open to anybody with $25 & an axe to grind. Perhaps you should tell us what the scientific assesment of the Shriners is – at least they don’t self select for loopiness.

3 – The alarmists cause has most definitely not survived examination eg the IPPCC have withdrawn their claim about the Himalayam glaciers, which provide water to half the world’s population, disappearing in 25 years because it was (A) not a peer reviewed study as claim but an off the cuff remark to a journalist & (B) it was obviously nuts.

The fact is that one of the leaders of this simply refused to let his claims be examined on the grounds that the examiner wanted to test them. That is not science but if Prof Jones had not known it was rubbish he would have had no objection to showing it.

We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 650,000 years, and we know the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels.

We know that the earth is getting warmer.

We know that ocean temperatures are rising.

We know that sea levels have been rising.

As the planet’s population grows (expected to hit 9 billion around 2050) and the level of lifestyle affluence increases, we will see these trends continue upward.

What will be the result? Lots of opinions on this question, and I’m not a scientist, but logic tells me that the trends in this data are not leading us toward a pleasant outcome.

We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 650,000 years, and we know the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels.

We know that the earth is getting warmer.

We know that ocean temperatures are rising.

We know that sea levels have been rising.

As the planet’s population grows (expected to hit 9 billion around 2050) and the level of lifestyle affluence increases, we will see these trends continue upward.

What will be the result? Lots of opinions on this question, and I’m not a scientist, but logic tells me that the trends in this data are not leading us toward a pleasant outcome.

We know that CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 650,000 years, and we know the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels.

We know that the earth is getting warmer.

We know that ocean temperatures are rising.

We know that sea levels have been rising.

As the planet’s population grows (expected to hit 9 billion around 2050) and the level of lifestyle affluence increases, we will see these trends continue upward.

What will be the result? Lots of opinions on this question, and I’m not a scientist, but logic tells me that the trends in this data are not leading us toward a pleasant outcome.

Again, if you think the NOAA, NASA, hundreds of governments around the world, and professors from our country’s leading universities are coordinating a big conspiracy by agreeing that climate change is a real and serious threat, it is hard to even think of what to say to you about this.

But here are a few things:

1) If you ask the community of chemists with a Ph.D. in the field what they think about some aspect of chemistry and they all give you the same answer, and then some chiropractors, biologists, and philosophers come tell you that they disagree, who are you going to believe?

2) The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org) consists of about 250,000 members (and I imagine some of them do not work for a government organization) and they are coming out very strongly saying that we need to get serious and adress this true, proven issue of climate change: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/02/19/what-is-the-union-of-concerned-scientists-concerned-about-fox-news/

3) The work of climate scientists has been put under extreme peer review, extra examination, and continues to hold up. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

Of course, the science of climate deniers, which is the real scam, should be the true controversy getting more attention in the media. See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/08/wegman-barton-hockey-stick-analysis-revealed-as-fatally-flawed-right-wing-anti-science-set-up/

Neil, it’s great if your genuinely concerned, because you could use that concern to learn more about the matter. But it seems that rather than learn more about the issues, climate deniers are set on a conclusion that is not based on a truly comprehensive and scientific analysis of the issues.

Again, if you think the NOAA, NASA, hundreds of governments around the world, and professors from our country’s leading universities are coordinating a big conspiracy by agreeing that climate change is a real and serious threat, it is hard to even think of what to say to you about this.

But here are a few things:

1) If you ask the community of chemists with a Ph.D. in the field what they think about some aspect of chemistry and they all give you the same answer, and then some chiropractors, biologists, and philosophers come tell you that they disagree, who are you going to believe?

2) The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org) consists of about 250,000 members (and I imagine some of them do not work for a government organization) and they are coming out very strongly saying that we need to get serious and adress this true, proven issue of climate change: http://ecopolitology.org/2010/02/19/what-is-the-union-of-concerned-scientists-concerned-about-fox-news/

3) The work of climate scientists has been put under extreme peer review, extra examination, and continues to hold up. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

Of course, the science of climate deniers, which is the real scam, should be the true controversy getting more attention in the media. See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/08/wegman-barton-hockey-stick-analysis-revealed-as-fatally-flawed-right-wing-anti-science-set-up/

Neil, it’s great if your genuinely concerned, because you could use that concern to learn more about the matter. But it seems that rather than learn more about the issues, climate deniers are set on a conclusion that is not based on a truly comprehensive and scientific analysis of the issues.

I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial