The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday

11 Responses to “The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday”

TrackBack URL

1. Hyscience Says:
   1

   Names Of Over 31,000 American Scientists Rejecting Theory Of Anthropogenic Global Warming To Be Revealed Monday

   Dr. Arthur Robinson at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is to release the names of over 31,000 scientists rejecting the Anthropogenic global warming theory (read - hoax) … HT - Right Voices…

   May 18th, 2008 at May 18, 2008 - 07:53 PM
2. Robert Says:
   2

   GREAT News! I doubt the MSM will report on this, but 31,000 is a large number, and especially considering the extreme pressure put on dissenters historically.

   Gosh, I thought the science was in, there was a consensus…

   Human-caused GW/Climate Change: The biggest hoax of the last 100 years.

   May 18th, 2008 at May 18, 2008 - 08:11 PM
3. Pam Says:
   3

   I guess it’s easier to say a debate is over if you can’t qualify your position! Al Gore is the biggest joke of the last century. I do admire the fact that he managed to make so much money off of all the suckers that bought into his crap! Carbon offset anyone?

   May 18th, 2008 at May 18, 2008 - 08:20 PM
4. San Francisco Liberal Says:
   4

   Ahhh! How cute! They might all be able to fill a small stadium!

   May 18th, 2008 at May 18, 2008 - 08:45 PM
5. BonBon Says:
   5

   Well San Fran yes, maybe a small stadium but hey it wasn’t too long ago you were saying the debate was over. The scientific world was unanimous in their views. I guess you were wrong and rather than say that you make a joke. How cute!

   May 19th, 2008 at May 19, 2008 - 07:50 AM
6. snowy egret Says:
   6

   If AL GORE was in the SUPERDOME and started blabbering about this GLOBAL WARMING bull kaka poppycock it would probibly rise to the outer atmosphear becuase of all the HOT AIR that AL GORE would produce

   May 19th, 2008 at May 19, 2008 - 08:08 AM
7. Robert Says:
   7

   BonBon #5 you beat me to it!

   May 19th, 2008 at May 19, 2008 - 08:25 AM
8. FrmrArtyOffcr Says:
   8

   HEy San Fran, Google Warner Lieberman Environmental Security act and realize that it’s going to cause your organic tofu to cost about $20/pound and your Starbucks about $15 a cup while raising your electric bill 400%. Then tell me how much you like the man made global warming hysteria. And it is hysteria. Google “little climatic optimum” It’s the period from roughly 800 to 1200 AD where the average mean temp of the planet was a few degrees warmer than their idiotic computer simulations have the world being in another 50 years.

   Al Gore is a snake oil salesman and far too many people have lined up to buy it buy the barrel.

   May 19th, 2008 at May 19, 2008 - 10:13 PM
9. David Says:
   9

   Actually, I believe the Warner Lieberman Environmental Security act has been stalled for about seven months and probably won’t fly anyway. If a bill’s main purpose is to clean up the environment and get people less dependant on fossil fuels, is that such a bad thing?
   David

   May 20th, 2008 at May 20, 2008 - 01:24 PM
10. Pam Says:
    10

    David, it isn’t always the intention of the actual bill, but the crap they load onto them that is horrible for us. Doctors tell us to cut pork, as in fat, from our diets, yet the pork in Washington DC is unending. That being said, in the case of this bill, one can’t help but be gun shy after ethanol. Why can’t they just write a clear bill that sticks to point? Is there some rule that says the Senate must sneak stuff into bills? (both sides do this)

    Overview

    S. 2191 imposes strict upper limits on the emis­sion of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) with the pri­mary emphasis on carbon dioxide (CO2). The mechanism for capping these emissions requires emitters to acquire federally created permits (allowances) for each ton emitted. The cost of the allowances will be significant and will lead to large increases in the cost of energy. Because the allow­ances have an economic effect much like the effect of an energy tax, the increase in energy costs creates correspondingly large transfers of income from pri­vate energy consumers to special interests.

    Implementing S. 2191 will be very costly, even given the most generous assumptions. To put a firm floor under the cost estimates, we assume that all of the problems of meeting currently enacted federal, state, and local legislation are overcome. A further unlikely condition is added; namely, that a critical but unproven technology–carbon capture and sequestration–will be ready for full-scale commer­cial use in just 10 years.[1] Making a more reasonable assumption about just this one technology leads to dramatically higher (but by no means worst-case) costs.[2] We use these two cases to bracket our cost projections of S. 2191:

    * Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
    * Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
    * Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
    * The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).[3]
    * The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in infla­tion-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.

    Our analysis does not extend beyond 2030, at which point S. 2191 mandates GHG reductions to 33 percent below the 2005 level. However, it should be noted that the mandated GHG reductions con­tinue to become more severe and must be 70 per­cent below the 2005 level by 2050.

    In addition to taking a bite out of consumers’ pocketbooks, the high energy prices throw a mon­key wrench into the production side of the econ­omy. Contrary to the claims of an economic boost from “green investment” and “green-collar” job cre­ation, S. 2191 reduces economic growth, GDP, and employment opportunities.

    Though there are some initial years during which S. 2191 spurs additional investment, this investment is completely undermined by the neg­ative effects of higher energy prices. Investment contributes to the economy when it increases future productivity and income. The greater and more effective the investment, the greater the increase in future income. Since income (as mea­sured by GDP) drops as a result of S. 2191, it is clear that more capital is destroyed than is cre­ated. The cumulative GDP losses for the period 2010 to 2030 fall between $1.7 trillion and $4.8 trillion, with single-year losses reaching into the hundreds of billions.

    The hope for “green-collar” jobs meets a similar fate. Firms are saddled with significantly higher energy costs that must be reflected in their prod­uct prices. The higher prices make their products less attractive to consumers and thus less compet­itive. As a result, employment drops along with the drop in sales.

    May 20th, 2008 at May 20, 2008 - 01:32 PM
11. San Francisco Liberal Says:
    11

    “…it wasn’t too long ago you were saying the debate was over. The scientific world was unanimous in their views. I guess you were wrong”

    ————-

    Yeah, actually, the debate is STILL over. Has been for years now. And, yes, it is kinda “cute” how there are still holdouts on this issue…mostly for political or ideological reasons.

    BonBon, I found this insightful comment on the link Pam provided, I suggest you read it:

    “It only takes 2 minutes of googling to find that this is BS. In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM’s website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the “National Anxiety Center.” Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the “biggest hoax of the decade…”

    This “List” is a fucking fraud! LOL…don’t be so gullible next time, guys.

    May 20th, 2008 at May 20, 2008 - 05:23 PM