Originally reported at Climate Depot.... The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world’s largest scientific society."
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change." ...
Saturday, August 1, 2009
More climate non-consensus
Via Anthony Watts - American Chemical Society scientists revolt against their journal’s editor in chief:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Last year ACS's membership totaled 110,850 - a dozen letters is a "revolt"? I would bet that if you dig just a tad deeper, those chemists would have done a little research work on behalf of the petroleum industry.
In my mind now - climate change deniers are about as useful as the big tobacco industry of the post. I am sure that we can all recall the numerous scientific opinion that "proved" that smoking had no adverse heath effects on people
A few questions for Mr. Anonymous:
1. What is so different with the current intergalcial period that we are in as opposed to the previous ones?
2. How is it that the previous interglacial periods occurred when there were few 'men' on earth to have caused the global warming that caused the considerable ice melt?
3. How do you ratioalize reducing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere considering that without CO2 all plant life on earth will cease to exist and in due course so too will all human life. (without food).
By the way, yes the climate is changing, BUT, it has always being changing and always will be.
There are tens of thousands of scientists not funded in any way shape or form by the oil industry who do not agree with the global warming theories of Al Gore et al.
Please Mr. Anonymous, give us your 'informed take' on these points.
Lewis, You ask relevant questions though I have a hunch that Anonymous will deny the credibility of the science you mention on grounds that it was done by geo-scientists who as a group do not accept the AGW hypothesis. He will also argue that geo-scientists are heavily funded by the oil industry. It's all a conspiracy.
It's absolutely amazing that warmists like Anonymous actually claim to believe that large numbers of people (including you and me) are evil enough to deliberately conspire to promote practices they know will destroy the planet and kill their children and grandchildren. That's some claim - the epitome of delusion. (See my next post, similar theme).
Post a Comment