Quote:
Quote by: Sonart  .
{{SIGH}} No, Foxfyre... my list (see below) -- which you continually ignore -- represented the most pre-eminant, most prestigious SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS in the U.S., representing the research work of thousands of qualified, credentialed, peer reviewed scientists.
My OTHER list was intended to show you the high profile CONSERVATIVE leaders who have finally faced reality, conceded the research, and accepted the truth --- AND THE POTENTIAL THREAT -- of global warming.
I've listed more major American scientific institutions that have issued consensus statements declaring the reality of anthropogenic global warming than you have individual scientists denying it.
You simply don't understand that your premise -- that scientists are abandoning Global Warming in droves -- is simply wrong. It's a lie. It's a disinformation campaign being promoted by the opponents of global warming research... the ones I keep telling you about, over and over. Conservative, libertarian, free-market think tanks who are opposed to any form of government regulation of business, and therefore refuse to accept that global warming is a reality.
And THOSE are the people on the OTHER list... the most eminant Conservative, libertarian, free-market leaders who have changed their minds and admitted that the facts are what they are.
{{BIG SIGH}} I don't have to...the vast, overwhelming majority are already there. The Tobacco industry could come up with a dozen scientists that stated tobacco wasn't harmful... so what. Your silly list of pathetic losers doesn't even dent the massive weight of current scientific consensus.
ONCE AGAIN!
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
. |
Okay now really try to focus here. You can do this. I have faith that you too can have a discussion on a real issue without changing the subject.
The discussion was about those credentialed scientists who were on the pro-AGW side but who have jumped ship. You challenged that and demanded names. I furnished them.
Now you want to go back to the original groups and seem to think posting a list of organizations and publications is the same thing. You seem to think that politicians and pundits carry the same weight of credibility as does a PhD environmental scientist on the issue of global warming.
It isn't and they don't.
Follow the money and see how many of the organizations you listed are arms of the UN with
political motives to further AGW and how many of the others depend on environmentalist wacko funding to stay in business.
Then check out the credentials of those I listed as scientists who once supported AGW but who now report that the science to support it simply does not hold up. And not one can be shown to have financial or political motives undergirding their point of view.