No, you are being flamed because of the reasons you give for being skeptical about global warming.

They are not my theories. If you read a little you would know that many have talked about it, and being flamed about it too.

Fred Singer who is an American athmospherist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia is one of them. He talks about third world kleptocrats.

I guess he is also one of those not within the climate science community that GoNative talks about.

By the way, if you are interested in reading science rather than just insulting you may read one of his books "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years".

Interesting book, by the way, he is a lunatic with an impressive curriculum. I think he invented the instrument for measuring ozone that the satellites use.

Dr. Akasofu earned a B.S. and a M.S. in geophysics at Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, in 1953 and 1957. respectively. He earned a Ph.D in geophysics at UAF in 1961. Within the framework of his Ph.D. thesis he studied the aurora. His scientific adviser was Sydney Chapman. Dr. Akasofu has been a professor of geophysics at UAF since 1964.

Yep he's not a climate scientist. He's a geophysicist whose specialty is aurora. Excellent scientist without doubt but hardly renowned in climate science circles. Be interesting to go through that list of 400 scientists and see what percentage of them actually studied anything related to climate.

It's part of geophysics the study of the atmosphere and its climate. You can look it up. Akasofu is quite renowned within the climate community, and his notes on climate change are taken into account by many climatologists and have inspired many students and professors, you can look this up too.

To say that he is not an expert it's like if you say that a mathematician doesn't know crap about computer science.



Anyway, so you can be satisfied these are CLIMATOLOGISTS who oppose the so-called global warming consensus :

- Fred Singer (University of Virginia, and inventor (if I recall well) of the instruments for measuring ozone in orbital satellites.)

- Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute) - now retired

- William M. "Bill" Gray (piooneer of the hurricane prediction science, Emeritus professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.)

- William Kininmonth (australian methereologist, headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998)

- George Kukla (retired professor of climatology at Columbia University and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)

- Marcel Leroux (French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment)

- Tim Patterson (paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada)

- John Christy (professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports)

- William R. Cotton (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University)

- Richard Lindzen (Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences)

It seems the only one who speaks out of ignorance here is you.
Rather than having others call you fool, you are doing a great job at making one of yourself.

I've no interest in keeping arguing with you, you insulted me, you despised me, and you talked to me as if I am a paranoid lunatic who doesn't know what he is talking about. I won't continue this argument anymore because you don't deserve my time.
But whenever I consider that some people may find an article about global warming interesting I'll keep on posting with the permission of the SJ moderators, and always respecting others who don't share my views as best as I can.

coldcat I can easily add to that list if you want. No one has suggested that every single climatologist on the planet is in agreement. What you probably don't understand is that such debate has always gone on in scientific circles of most disciplines. If this debate wasn't so decisive politically and had such ramifications economically then no one would probably much care. In this case though the words of prominent scientists are used by both sides to support their political agendas. And too often the words being used are just opinions and are not sourced from peer reviewed papers published in credible scientific journals and yet are put forward as real science.

The biggest problem I have with your arguments about AGW is that they come from no real understanding of the science and probably no real interest in it. Everything you post is directly from websites that have formed the basis of your views, not from any true knowledge of the subject you debate so vigorously. Personally I try to avoid acting as though I am some sort of doyen of knowledge on subjects I actually know little about. You should give it a go!

coldcat, you complain that the scientists supporting global warming are corrupted and doing it for money and whatnot, and accuse us of blindly following what they say.

Have a look at the very first name at the top of the list of your so-called scientists bravely challenging the orthodox theories, and tell me Mr Singer is not guilty of the very thing you accuse other scientists of

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

he also contends that second-hand smoke is not dangerous, and is also on the payroll of big tobacco.

And like i said before, i don't know many people who want to keep the 3rd world from developing their own resources and moving out of poverty. Try reading some Stephen Lewis.

But Global warming affects them even worse than us. A food shortage from f-ed up weather will raise world food prices (just like half-assed attempts to make ethenol from corn). They already live on the margins, which is why GW is an issue for them too.

However, they are not polluting as much as we are, it is up to us to reduce our own pollution before we go about asking the same of the developing nations. And like i said, it is mostly the US that is blocking that path, but that might change a little now.

Maybe he doesn't. I went to medical school, now specialising in Cardiology - so I'm no expert on global warming either - but by the same token, I don't pretend to be an expert in other fields of medicine. It's the same thing.

Isn't your list just a rundown of all the experts interviewed for "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? This is getting to be like a courtroom where each side brings in a team of "experts" who have diametrically opposing opinions, and try and discredit each other's arguments. Isn't it enough for us to agree that there are differences of opinion when it comes to global warming, but that the current consensus is that manmade greenhouse gases are probaly contributing. There are those with differing views, and the onus is on them to generate viable alternate hypotheses to explain the current warming trends, which I don't believe has been achieved.

Introducing conspiracy theories like Eugenics or World Government to the argument is unhelpful, as conspiracy theories can never be disproven, by their very nature.

Also, being a well respected and accomplished scientist doesn't mean you are not wrong.