Challenge to global warming deniers: Here’s my list; where’s yours?


The current snap of harsh winter weather across much of America predictably has given rise to snarky chortling among global warming deniers. Their grasp of the overall situation apparently doesn’t extend beyond what they can perceive from their front porches or what the thermometers outside their kitchen windows tell them.

All of this brings to mind a point I’ve made repeatedly in recent years: There is not a single scientific organization of national or international standing — not even one in the whole world — that doesn’t subscribe to mainstream scientific theories regarding man-made global warming.

But despite the numerous times I’ve mentioned that fact, I’ve never received anything from the deniers that would disprove it.

So, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to list the many organizations on my side of the argument, and I’m going to challenge the deniers to produce their list.

Here’s mine:

1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10. Académie des Sciences, France
11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12. Academy of Athens
13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
14. Academy of Science of South Africa
15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24. African Academy of Sciences
25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27. American Academy of Pediatrics
28. American Anthropological Association
29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32. American Astronomical Society
33. American Chemical Society
34. American College of Preventive Medicine
35. American Fisheries Society
36. American Geophysical Union
37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
38. American Institute of Physics
39. American Meteorological Society
40. American Physical Society
41. American Public Health Association
42. American Quaternary Association
43. American Society for Microbiology
44. American Society of Agronomy
45. American Society of Civil Engineers
46. American Society of Plant Biologists
47. American Statistical Association
48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49. Australian Academy of Science
50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51. Australian Coral Reef Society
52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
53. Australian Institute of Physics
54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
55. Australian Medical Association
56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58. Botanical Society of America
59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60. British Antarctic Survey
61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62. California Academy of Sciences
63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64. Canadian Association of Physicists
65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66. Canadian Geophysical Union
67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71. Center for International Forestry Research
72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77. Crop Science Society of America
78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80. Ecological Society of America
81. Ecological Society of Australia
82. Environmental Protection Agency
83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84. European Federation of Geologists
85. European Geosciences Union
86. European Physical Society
87. European Science Foundation
88. Federation of American Scientists
89. French Academy of Sciences
90. Geological Society of America
91. Geological Society of Australia
92. Geological Society of London
93. Georgian Academy of Sciences
94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96. Indian National Science Academy
97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102. InterAcademy Council
103. International Alliance of Research Universities
104. International Arctic Science Committee
105. International Association for Great Lakes Research
106. International Council for Science
107. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
108. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109. International Union for Quaternary Research
110. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112. Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115. Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116. Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117. l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118. Latin American Academy of Sciences
119. Latvian Academy of Sciences
120. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121. Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122. Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123. Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125. National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
130. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131. National Association of State Foresters
132. National Center for Atmospheric Research
133. National Council of Engineers Australia
134. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136. National Research Council
137. National Science Foundation
138. Natural England
139. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140. Natural Science Collections Alliance
141. Network of African Science Academies
142. New York Academy of Sciences
143. Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145. Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147. Organization of Biological Field Stations
148. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151.Polish Academy of Sciences
152. Romanian Academy
153. Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155. Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157. Royal Irish Academy
158. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162. Royal Society of Canada
163. Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166. Russian Academy of Sciences
167. Science and Technology, Australia
168. Science Council of Japan
169. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173. Slovak Academy of Sciences
174. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175. Society for Ecological Restoration International
176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177. Society of American Foresters
178. Society of Biology (UK)
179. Society of Biology, UK
180. Society of Systematic Biologists
181. Soil Science Society of America
182. Sudan Academy of Sciences
183. Sudanese National Academy of Science
184. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
185. The Wildlife Society (international)
186. Turkish Academy of Sciences
187. Uganda National Academy of Sciences
188. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
189. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
190. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
191. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
192. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
193. World Federation of Public Health Associations
194. World Forestry Congress
195. World Health Organization
196. World Meteorological Organization
197. Zambia Academy of Sciences
198. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences



  1. “Skepticism is the essence of real science, yet that term is used to deride those who reject orthodoxy. That makes Global Warming religion, not science.”

    Old Hickory

  2. thehereandnow1

    Don’t need a list P-Train, I’ve got fact and history. Fact: The global warming doom and gloomers have been peddling this crap for years and years and years. Those old enough to remember a time when we didn’t give a crap about Kim Kardashian will remember all the actors in the 80’s who were self-appointed masters of the environment. Remember Ted Danson? Back in the 80’s he was convinced that unless we changed our evil ways we’d all be under water by now. Or Ed Bagley Jr.? What’s that, you don’t know who he is? Exactly. Remember back in the day when everyone had to switch from having their groceries bagged in paper to bagged in plastic because it was better for the environment? Hey, guess what type of grocery bag is now considered bad for the environment? Or how about switching from glass bottles to plastic? Plastic bottles were better for the environment. Ooooops!

    Sure, you can sit here and say that since last year was one of the top 10 hottest years in the last 12 years, and heck I’ll even let you go back 30 years, hey 30 years out of a place that’s been around for several billion is a great point to make. And you can type up a list of 198 organizations that have nothing better to do than say we’re screwing everything up. It’s amazing how all of these so called intelligent men of science can be making calculations that they are convinced are true and fact, yet still make predictions that continue to be wrong. You can have Sting singing in a rain forest before he starts another tantric sexcapade, Sheryl Crow laud the benefits of using one square of toilet paper, Al Gore screaming about how we’re destroying the planet before he hops in his private jet and enjoys the spoils of selling a tv station to company backed by an oil-wealthy nation, heck, even you P-Dawg, with his tables and quotes from the pinup boys of the global doom and gloom community, saying how we’re destroying sweet Mother Earth. And yet, it (and we) ain’t goin anywhere anytime soon. In fact, years from now, an archeologist will happen upon some of your posts on this topic, and they’ll probably say, “Hey, remember when people were so stupid back then to make those global warming predictions?”

    • There are no celebrities on that list so your reply is off-topic. What scientific bodies can you name that don’t believe increases in CO2 in the atmosphere wont cause global warming?

      • thehereandnow1

        Goggle, please Google before you make idiotic statements like that:

        Ted Danson – Starred in a little tv show called “Cheers” and is currently the lead in “CSI”

        Ed Bagley Jr. – While I think his views on climate change are wonky, he has starred in some good films, notably he played the drummer in “Spinal Tap” who died choking on vomit, though the doctors couldn’t determine whose vomit it was.

        More importantly – CO2 has been around a long time. Sometimes more, sometimes less. We ain’t going anywhere, so there’ll be lots of time for you to try to not sound like a fool.

        • Err, I’m referring to the article above asking for lists of scientific bodies who support the idea that global warming is not a problem. You have completely ignored that request and instead waffled about celebrities. Personally I’m more likely to listen to climate scientists and the scientific bodies listed above when they say that the earth is going to suffer more and more problems from the increase in greenhouse gas. What celebrities say now or in the past is of no interest to me.

          • thehereandnow1

            Err, my point is that the scientists, like the celebrities, are wrong. Scientists who may or may not be in the alphabet soup list of Chicken Little impersonators Pat lists have been saying we’re doomed for the last 30 years. Yet, their deadlines have come and gone with none of their prophesies coming true.

            I have not waffled, I have simply shown you that your scientists have been proven wrong. How? By scientific tests run in controlled environments and postulations? No, by the simple fact that we are still kicking it on this rock.

            All you science gurus are so quick to bash religion for things that you claim cannot be proven. Yet none of your climate change predictions have come true either. Talk about phony gods.

  3. How can you expect those who are in denial, who also make up much of the religious right, to follow scientific findings when they believe in virgin births? You’re overloading them with things they aren’t equipped to understand.

    I think they would understand better if you told them that thunder is God playing a game of bocce ball in the sky. Or that Category 4 and 5 hurricanes and tornadoes are God’s wrath for gay marriage.

  4. hereandnow: There’s nothing in your comment that disproves mainstream scientific theories on global warming. Nothing. You just prattle on and on and on in a manner that brings to mind Shakespeare’s line from “Macbeth” about a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    • thehereandnow1

      Pat-O-Lingo, you want to talk about tales told by an idiot? How about scientists who predict that if in X number of years man doesn’t change their evil ways the world will be destroyed, and then, when those years pass and we’re still kicking around, they just extend the time with no explanation. Global warming/cooling/insert term of the day here is the only science where exactness is ignored. If I had a dime for every deadline that some climate expert in the “mainstream scientific community” made that has passed with none of the accompanying doom and gloom, I’d have more than enough to adequately cover the increases in healthcare payments coming thanks to Big Boppa Barry’s “Health Screw To You”.

      Tell you what PatORamaLamaDingDong, you keep believing men sitting in sanitized labs making wild-ass guesses, and quoting centuries dead playwrights, I’ll be enjoying life.

  5. hereandnow: You’ve submitted five comments on this thread so far, and none of them has met the challenge posed in the headline of the post above. I named 198 scientific organizations of national or international standing that endorse mainstream scientific consensus on the issue of global warming. All you’ve offered is gibberish and nonsense. You haven’t named a single reputable scientific organization that agrees with you on this issue. Put up or shut up. Any further comments from you that fail to meet the challenge I’ve posed will be deleted from this thread.

  6. There are papers that are peer reviewed that show that sea level rise is linear there are none that I know of that show convincing evidence that sea level rise is accelerating. The only way to make such a case is to combine satellite data with tide gage data. If sea level was rising non linearly it would be obvious by inspection of tie gage info. . Its Not. The argument isn’t whether the earth is changing. The argument is why do we care. The predictions of net negative consequences are not coming true.

  7. The Engineer

    Nr. 1 – If one proposes an incorrect thesis, that thesis remains false independant of eventual response from the opponents. Its commenly known as “a strawman argument”. Your list is a strawman because no matter how many unions claim a scientific position – none of them are required to prove their claims in accordance with the scientific methods.
    The organisations you name are all fundamentally political – not scientific. None of them produce for example scientific papers.

    Nr. 2 Your thesis is also fundamentally flawed according to laws of logic – Consensus is not science. There ar many examples of consensus (also amongst the named organisations) which were later proven to be false – often by individuals.
    I.e. Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift.

    Nr. 3 That said here is one paper which I believe proves that all the organisations on your list are mistaken (again):


    Here are 1099 other scientific papers that do not support your thesis:


    • The Engineer, I’ve decided to take a random look at your list and see who these people are affiliated with. This is the result of my 1st endeavor. I’ll look up a few more too see if they have energy industry affiliation in their present or past. Of course list like this and the people affiliated with it will have learned to scrub the current affiliations with any energy producing group, but that doesn’t mean they’re not acting as their advocates. There’s lots of whores in DC and the major corps if the request pays enough.

      Author, S. Fred Singer http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/kv75274882804k98/

      “Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon.[3] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[58] Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[3] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[3]”

      “In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called “the denial machine” met at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer’s group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.”


      • The Engineer

        Hi Robert, heres an original thought; instead of looking for affiliation (and therefore attempting ad hominem attacks on individuals) why not LOOK AT THE SCIENCE being presented ?

        I’m sure you can find at couple of papers amongst the 1100 where the science is debatable. We know for example that most of the science presented by the IPCC is exceptionally WEAK. I.E. Climate models.

  8. The Engineer: Your comment is utter nonsense, especially the part where you say that none of the organizations I’ve listed have produced scientific papers.

  9. The Engineer: Allow me to cite just one of the organizations on my list — The National Science Foundation, which is well-known for debunking papers that are based on one or more of three types of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

    • The Engineer

      Hej Pat – I don’t get it !
      You claim to have been a political journalist for 41 years, yet
      you don’t understand the word “cite”.
      You don’t know what “a peer-reviewed scientific paper” is, nor do you seem to have the faintest idea how research actually happens.

      The 198 organisations you refered to DO NOT DO research, nor do they produce scientific papers for peer-review.

      The IPCC refers to loads of grey papers (approx 30%) which are non peer-reviewed one sided opinion pieces by NGOs such as WWF or Greenpeace, but nowhere does the IPCC refer to papers by national science organisations, for obvious reasons.

  10. Bruce Richardson

    “I’m going to list the many organizations on my side of the argument, and I’m going to challenge the deniers to produce their list.”

    That is a fallacious argument: Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). You can’t prove something by showing how many people or in this case organizations agree. How many agree is irrelevant. Science is not determine by a popular vote. If 99 people think that something is true and only one thinks that it is false, it doesn’t somehow become true even if it turns out to be false.

    “I’ve never received anything from the deniers that would disprove it.”

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. For example, someone might argue that X is true because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the X is false is not the same as proving it true.

    It is reasonable to assume that it has warmed. That’s what ended the Little Ice Age. Actually, I don’t know of anyone on the skeptical side who is arguing that it hasn’t warmed, on average, over the last 113 years. Why do you call us “global warming deniers?”

    It is reasonable to assume that increasing CO2 could be contributing to that warming. The question is how much of the warming is anthropogenic.

    The correlation between CO2 and temperature is good for around 26 of the last 113 years. The correlation between the just the North Atlantic (NA) sea surface temperature and the surface-based records has been good for almost all of the 113 years. The most recent warming period (there have been two since 1900) correlates with both CO2 and the NA SST. None of the three primary surface-based temperature records shows appreciable warming or cooling since around 2001. The NA SST has topped out and has been flat since around 2001. During that period, CO2 has increased and temperatures haven’t.

    Solar activity is the lowest in over 100 years i.e. a cool phase. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has moved also into a cool phase. The NA SST is still in a warm phase but so far it isn’t getting warmer. The NA SST has been essentially flat since around 2001. We know that it will start moving into the next cool phase at some point. If it does so while solar and the PDO remain in a cool phase, we are likely to see cooling no matter what the concentration of CO2 is.

    Correlations don’t prove causation. But with the lack of correlation for almost 88 of the last 113 years, it is reasonable to question the claim that almost all of the warming for those 25 years was anthropogenic.

    By the way, “denier” is an offensive term. Name-calling in debate is fallacious. That’s Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). Stooping to name-calling suggests a weakness in your argument.

    I’m curious. What do you think is the strongest evidence that anthropogenic CO2 caused the warming from around 1975 to around 2001. Consensus of opinion is not evidence. None of the models were able to predict the flattening of temperatures since 2001 so models as evidence would be laughable.

  11. I eagerly await Pat’s snarky reply.

  12. Bump awaiting Pat’s reply.

  13. expdoc: Here’s your eagerly awaited reply to Bruce Richardson:

    For starters, I couldn’t care less that he considers the term “deniers” offensive. They are what they are. They’re deniers.

    And then there’s his misrepresentation or misunderstanding of this statement in my post: “I’ve never received anything from the deniers that would disprove it.”

    He says that’s “Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance).” But it’s not. Here’s the context in which I made the statement at issue:

    “There is not a single scientific organization of national or international standing — not even one in the whole world — that doesn’t subscribe to mainstream scientific theories regarding man-made global warming.

    “But despite the numerous times I’ve mentioned that fact, I’ve never received anything from the deniers that would disprove it.”

    In other words, I have not received anything from the deniers that disproves my statement about there not being “a single scientific organization of national or international standing — not even one in the whole world — that doesn’t subscribe to mainstream scientific theories regarding man-made global warming.”

    If and when I’m proven wrong on that point, I’ll admit it.

    • not even one in the whole world — that doesn’t subscribe to mainstream scientific theories regarding man-made global warming.”

      You see Pat, the problem is political. Not scientific. Key word in your quote above is “theories.” I have a theory that the people in the United States will oppose moving money from our part of the world to other parts of the world, while depressing industry and increasing prices on just about everything, on the stupid idea that it will change the global thermostat.

    • Bruce Richardson

      Pat, I won’t cry myself to sleep at night because you call me a “denier.” If you think engaging in name-calling bolsters your argument you should continue with the name-calling. And I will continue to debate without resorting to name-calling.

      You said:

      “But despite the numerous times I’ve mentioned that fact, I’ve never received anything from the deniers that would disprove it.”

      The “it” I assumed to be “mainstream scientific theories regarding man-made global warming.” If that wasn’t your intended meaning then I’m sorry. I did misunderstand.

      So often I have heard it argued that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) skeptics have to somehow prove that CO2 is not responsible for most of the second warming period in the 20th century. The fallacy is obvious, those that claim that there is looming CAGW have to make the case for their claim or it fail automatically. All that CAGW skeptics have to do is show that the CAGW espousers have not made the case for their claims. In my opinion, that’s where things stand at present.

      You list 198 organizations. Actually I didn’t know that there was a “Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.”

      Let us assume hypothetically that there was an organization 199 that disagreed with the 198 other organizations. Let’s further assume hypothetically that organization 199 turned out to be correct and the 198 other organizations turned out to be wrong. Would the fact that the 198 were the consensus be relevant?

      You zoomed in on the least relevant parts of my comment. I laid out some of what causes me be to skeptical of some of the claims coming from your side. I’m assuming that you are concerned about looming human caused catastrophic warming.

      I asked you a question. “What do you think is the strongest evidence that anthropogenic CO2 caused the warming from around 1975 to around 2001.”

      I assumed that you believe that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for most of the second warming period from around 1975 to around 2001. That is the position that the IPCC took in the last Summary for Policy Makers. What could happen that would cause you to reconsider if that is your position? I appears to me that whatever the weather does, CAGW espousers claim that it is consistent with the CAGW hypothesis. If there was a cooling trend over the next ten years, would that cause you to reconsider? I’m just curious.

  14. As ineffective as it is “unsnarky”.

  15. thehereandnow1

    So Pat, you warned/challenged/pseudo-threatened me that I needed to come up with a list. At which point, if I did, and did not have more than the 198 names you listed, you would have claimed victory. All of my comments have been true, and there’s nothing you or any of your fellow doom and gloomers have said to prove otherwise.

    Now, I simply ask this Pat. Instead of getting into a game of “mine’s longer than yours” I ask this simple question. Since the 70′s climate scare-ologists have been predicting dire consequences for dear sweet mother Earth. Soon after Katrina many were saying that next hurricane season was going to see many more as bad or worse than Katrina, all because of global warming. Yet, none have happened. I ask this: Name me any one of the deadly, dire ramifications that many of your listed organizations have predicted would happen over the course of the last 40 years that has actually happened. As well, since thanks to science we can accurately determine the age of a 150 million year old piece of poop, can you or any of your listed friends show that the temperature changes over the last 20 years are more drastic than a similar span in the years before man became industrialized? How do you explain the ice age? Were mastodons burning fossil fuels, or overly gassy?

    You can have a list of groups as long as you want that shares your view, but the simple, clear fact is that not one of the end results they’ve been warning about has happened. And that right there is why I do not need a list.

  16. hereandnow: Congratulations. It’s early yet, but you’ve come up with the dumbest comment of the year so far.

    To wit (or dimwit, in your case), you say that “not one of the end results they’ve [meaning mainstream climate scientists] been warning about has happened.”

    Well, duh! They haven’t been warning about “end results” (as you redundantly call them) occurring this soon. It’s a longer-range problem.

    As I’ve said before, arguing with you is like arguing with a nine-year-old — and a slow-witted one at that.

  17. thehereandnow1

    Pat, oh Pat, anyone’s who’s older than 36 knows that with the snarky attitude of your comment that you are the slow-witted 9 year-old making dumb comments. So I will put this to you again. I leave it up to you to either read it slowly and carefully or have someone read it to you:

    1) Soon after hurricane Katrina global warming/cooling/fooling ‘scientists’ proclaimed that the next hurricane season was going to be more in frequency and severity, all because of global warming. They have repeated this claim numerous times since, even modifying it after the Joplin tornado. Yet, it has yet to happen. Why?

    2) In the late 70′s to mid 80′s scientists and their more popular mouthpieces in Hollywood proclaimed that if man did not stop their evil ways that by this time (2014), all of our major cities at least along coastal areas would be underwater if not worse. And yet here we are, and they’re still where they are.

    3) The same alphabet soup list you put also likes to say that there’s bee a warming trend in the last 15-20 years, and they cry up and down that that is a signal of our doom if we continue our evil ways. Yet can any of them accurately claim that this trend is different than any other 15-20 year period over that last 500,000 years? I’ll help you on that – no, they can’t.

    Your “longer-range problem” you claim is a bunch of crap. They make these predictions, and then when they don’t come true they simple move the time frame back. That’s not science, that’s called making a wild-ass guess and changing it when you’re wrong.

    And remember Al Gore and his Carbon Credits? Talk about another scam. Remember when that was the big thing in Hollywood, “Oh, I can fly around in my private plane all I want because I bought some carbon credits.” “I can drive my Bentley and not feel guilty because I planted a tree.” Tell ya what, buy some carbon credits, and then go buy some of that miracle prayed upon holy water to cancel your debt, and then you can say you bought 2 worthless pieces of crap.

    Amazing how you think that because you can list organizations of people that sit in sanitized environments and run controlled experiments that you can come across as so holier-than-though. Here’s the truth Pat, the real world is showing that you again are the slow-witted 9 yr. old making dumb comments.

  18. Ross: Not surprisingly, you seem not to understand the word “theory” when it’s used in a scientific context.

    The scientific definition of the word “theory” is different from the colloquial sense of the word. In the vernacular, “theory” can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions.

    However, in science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

  19. And how do those scientific theories impact the two largest producers of “greenhouse gasses,” India and China? Both of which have no intention of doing anything to curb their pollution. Ya have any charts showing which countries are the biggest polluters and which of the industrialized world are the cleanest polluters? I heard or read somewhere that the U.S. is among the best in that regard and improving all the time. But, as long as China and india flip the world the bird, there isn’t anything the rest of us can do, or should do, to make up for their behavior.

  20. The biggest problem with this list is it’s not specific to what the organizations ‘subscribe’ to. Mainstream theory? I could say I believe in the theory that the earths climate changes and the greenhouse effect is also a good theory. The debate is about the sensitivity of global temps to CO2 and whether sea level is going to rise catastrophically. Make a list of which ones think we’re going to have a 10 ft or more sea rise by 2100 and it might be interesting. Your argument is meaningless as stated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>