1,700 UK Scientists Back Climate Science

AP ^ | 12/10/09 | The Associated Press

[RogerWilko]

Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. E-mails stolen from an English university appeared to show scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Climate skeptics — those who deny that human activity is responsible for global warming — have seized on the correspondence as evidence that scientists have conspired to hide the facts. Most scientists say the e-mails do nothing to undermine the evidence for climate change. More than 1,700 signed a statement released Thursday, saying they had confidence in the evidence for global warming "and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."

[RogerWilko]

I’ve got a funny feeling that they’re probably not the majority of scientists, or otherwise, they’d be YELLING it from the rooftops!

You think for a minute they wouldn’t take the opportunity to SCREAM: “60, 70, or 80% OF SCIENTISTS SAY MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGING THE CLIMATE!!”

I say that it shows that it does mean NOTHING!

[listenhillary]

50 to 60 BILLION dollars have been spent by governments and climate change scientists.

Then they whine about a couple of hundred million dollars spent by oil companies given to researchers and say that research is tainted.

Who has the vested interest in this p*ssing match?

[rlmorel]

Here is the way this should be approached:

1.) How many of them are in associated sciences with degrees in Math, Statistics, Geology, Meterology etc? (not Economics, not Sociology, not Polical Science, not teaching assistants, not politicians with honorary degrees, etc.)

2.) How many have published relevant, peer reviewed papers that deal directly with climate?

3.) What specifically would each of these “scientists” say about the evidence of tampering, evasion, fudging, intimidation and destruction of data?

4.) How do they answer the question of “Should a scientist advocate bad science in a cause felt to be important, or is it more important to advance the cause?”

[a fool in paradise]

I recall a similar display of academic bias when thousands of professors stateside stood in support of Bill Ayers, Pentagon bomber and domestic terrorist.

[Timocrat]

Reminds me of the open letter 365 eminent economists signed and published in the London Times saying Margaret Thatchers economic reforms would never work.

Academia is a subset of the world's oldest profession.

[marstegreg]

I really think that there is a large number against this, they are just reporting it in a way that makes it look good for them. I tried to find out how many scientists there are in U.K., I couldn’t find a figure. Does anyone know where to look? It would be interesting to find out, wouldn’t it?

[a fool in paradise]

Look when man first appeared, at the end of the Ice Age! Man warmed the planet then and has been doing it ever since! < /moonbat logic >

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

So if this administration is willing to implode our economy due to global warming, do you think they will make plans to do away with the sun?

It's more like there are many countries in the world wanting to set up world-governance and have a one-world system be put into place. The so-called "Global Warming" scenario is merely a mechanism for that end goal.

If that doesn't work, these same players who want this one-world governing entity, will simply look for another mechanism to do so.

Oh..., one more thing -- it will happen, too. There will be two different and separate one-world governments, in sequence -- with the second one destroying the first one (the one that is being put into place now), and that second one will be the one that everyone will live under, long term...

[WOBBLY BOB]

I can find 1700 Franken votes just by looking in a poll workers trunk in MPLS.

[rlmorel]

Great links, ETL. Great links.

[Logical me]

Actually there was probably around 5 or 6 but they signed on using fake names. If ACORN can do it............

[marstegreg]

I’m hoping for a huge turn-over in 2010. I think that no matter what he does in this regard, it won’t be enforced for a while. Maybe there is a chance that we can overturn some of the policies. Do you think it will happen even if congress and senate are anything other than Dem? I have been very worried about this type of scenario.

[noname07718]

UK doesn’t have 1700 Scientists!

[ETL]

Obama makes U.N. debut on global warming
September 22, 2009

From the transcript (final paragraph):

President Obama: "But the journey is long and the journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make that journey. It's a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setbacks, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts. So let us begin. For if we are flexible and pragmatic, if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose: a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children."

Obama makes U.N. debut on global warming (text, video here):
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-makes-un-debut-on-global-warming-text-video-here.html
______________________________________________

From GreenLeft.org

VENEZUELA: Chavez calls for global offensive for socialism
August 31, 2005

excerpts...

"The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet."

"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."

"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."

--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/640/640p16.htm
_______________________________________________

Obama's "Climate Czar" is on the same page with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro...

From The Washington Times, January 12, 2009

Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution

by Stephen Dinan

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

lots more...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/
_______________________________________________

Here's a link to an image of a Google cache of the Socialist International's webpage that originally included Obama's "Climate Czar" Carol Browner. It was found by FReeper, Publius6961:
http://24ahead.com/images/si-csws-cache-as-of-011009.jpg

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I’m hoping for a huge turn-over in 2010. I think that no matter what he does in this regard, it won’t be enforced for a while. Maybe there is a chance that we can overturn some of the policies. Do you think it will happen even if congress and senate are anything other than Dem? I have been very worried about this type of scenario.

Well, the fact that a one-world government is coming and will be set up -- doesn't mean that I have to support it. There is a difference there. And I will vote against policies and any of our government's actions that go towards that end, no matter what.

But, that's not to say that I think that my vote or the votes of others will make a difference, because, in the long run (don't know when exactly, next year, the year after... or...) -- the one-world government will happen.

That first one-world government, I don't support -- but -- I will fully support the second one-world government which comes after the first one... :-)

No matter what you or I say or do, it is coming -- guaranteed...

[ETL]

Sorry! Didn’t realize I posted that last one earlier in the thread.

[piytar]

The following in that piece is either incredibly ill informed or a lie:

“In general, studies indicate changes in solar output affect climate during periods lasting decades or centuries, ‘but this interpretation is controversial because it is not based on any understanding of the relevant physical processes,’ study member Schuessler told SPACE.com.”

Sunspots are an indicator of solar magnetic activity. Low sunspot activity means a weaker magnetic field. The sun’s magnetic field shields the Earth from cosmic rays coming in from outside the solar system. So this means more cosmic rays reach Earth. This is all very well know science.

Now, why does that matter? Because cosmic rays play an important role in cloud formation: When a cosmic ray strikes a dust particle, the particle becomes charged. This in turn attracts water vapor, thereby forming a water droplet. These form clouds. This process has been duplicated in laboratory conditions.

Note that this does not mean MORE water vapor in the atmosphere, it means the water vapor there forms more clouds. This increase in clouds reflect sunlight away from the Earth, cause rain, and otherwise cool the planet.

Now, AGW cultists will deny this, but ALL of these steps are experimentally proven PHYSICS. Not computer modeling, not theory, but calculated, tested, and repeatably verified PHYSICS.

Short version: The ginormous ball of thermonuclear fire in the sky affects the climate. Gee, what a radical idea!!!

[LoneStarGI]

There’s another story out there about this which gives a lot better information on this ‘petition’. Many of the ‘scientists’ that signed this petition have nothing to do with climate science. The organization that released this petition is a UK group that many scientists of all types have to go through to get work. Many of these scientists signed this petition for fear that they could lose their jobs and not find any more work.

[ETL]

Tanks. :)

[marstegreg]

Do you think they will have enough time to make this happen? The clock is ticking, as every day more and more people realize that this is a real possibility. With all the policies they are pushing, do you think there will be enough time for them get this through? I really hope you will give me a resounding “no”, but I feel a “yes” coming.