Community | August 01, 2009 | 60 comments

World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-made Climate Fears

source: http://www.infowars.com/worlds-largest-science-group-rejecting-man-made-climate-fears/

Image
Scrump
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”


An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief.

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.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Science,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Green,  FAIL,  Truth,  Infowars,  4 more
  3.     
    |

60 comments // World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-made Climate Fears

  • Scrump
  • Cacaoatl
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Cacaoatl:

      lol, did you really just cite the intergovernmental panel on climate change to prove that humans caused 'global warming'?

      oh, currenters and your beliefs backed up by government panels and skewed misleading statistics from dubious sources.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Cacaoatl:

      People who grossly over-generalize are nuts. Sorry, don't read infowars, but I do talk to scientists which is doing something legions beyond what your petty liberal agenda can accomplish.

      Congrats on censoring my posts, unimatrix! Always showing your true colors. For such a 'liberal', you certainly love censorship. You make this site suck.

    • 2 years ago
  • smallgod
  • locutus
  • smallgod
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Cacaoatl:

      Additionally it's interesting that you and uni used the exact same phrase, word for word, to 'insult me on current within the guidelines of an acceptable insult". Do I smell a bot or two?

    • 2 years ago
  • Cacaoatl
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Cacaoatl:

      So....you yelled at Scrump for posting stuff from Alex Jones' Infowars...but you're supporting yourself with websites that have the word "global warming" in their very titles?

    • 2 years ago
  • Cacaoatl
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Cacaoatl:

      Again, haven't you seen Futurama's 'into the wild green yonder'? A 'money shower' can make a good scientist 'prove' anything. That's why I talked to a group of scientists who stand to gain nothing from their research.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Cacaoatl:

      Actually, there are scientists out there that claim cancer is not caused by cigarettes, that giving hallucinogens to the mentally insane is a good idea, and that prescription drugs are safe. Their journals are all credible sources.

      I referenced scientists first, and yes, Matt Groening second as it was a funny parody of actual society. Did I really just have to explain that? Jeesh...

      I think I'm gonna go take a 'money shower'...

    • 2 years ago
  • Cacaoatl
  • larrysnotes
    • 0
      larrysnotes  

    • The earth is going to warm, it stopped in 2001. Man didnt do it. G.E. did with cap and trade from good old ENRON. I love a good fight.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • Do you really expect anyone to take Alex Jones and InfoWars seriously? They make FOX look respectable.

      Can you find a credible, mainstream source that supports the claims being made?

      @smallgod

      the fact that you need to attack me personally simply reveals the poverty of your position.

    • 2 years ago
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • unimatrix0:

      smallgod it's more like Soviet-esque really. The communists had special prisons for people who "offended the government" or maintained views contrary to the official propaganda. They were often called crazy, which is precisely the kind of response you will get from the Current types, and really from both the extreme leftwing and the rightwing.

      If you know anything about Al Gore's connections to former petroleum magnate, Armand Hammer, you will get a sense of how deep into communism and how hypocritical Al Gore's political views really are.

    • 2 years ago
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • unimatrix0:

      Obviously this is similar to what Current wants as well as what this individual wants. They would like everyone to live in a world where they can't communicate ideas unless it fits exactly what they want. If anyone disagrees, here come the crazy accusations. These idiots believe there is a difference between republicans and democrats when both end up deciding the same things, just going about it in different ways.

      Hopefully the brainwashing perpetuated by these individuals will eventually die so this country can get back on its feet.

    • 2 years ago
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  

    • An associate of mine Jacob Pearlman is working on atmospheric chemical research at NYU with other scientists trying to figure out what is happening to the atmosphere and exactly how much and if humans are involved in what is, according to the scientific community, no longer called 'global warming' (instead they now call the earth's changes simply 'climate change'). According to their research and what he's told me, there is no direct link between humans and 'climate change' and the scientific community has opted to switch the lingo to 'climate change' because we are apparently entering a little ice age. Next time I talk to him I'll ask him for a more 'scientific' analysis from their current research and post it up here.

      But people like unimatrix on Current are either bots or blindsided by their passion for their ideals so they are unwilling to listen to anyone, even scientists, who understand climate change isn't what Al Gore made it out to be.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  

    • one more thing...um...how is alex jones any more qualified than al gore? by your own logic you're a moron.

      second, you've got "650" dissenting scientists out of hundreds of thousands. the rest either support that man is having a global impact or think their is reasonable research to support looking further into it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Cacaoatl
    • 0
      Cacaoatl  

    • Scrump, your approach to this topic is about as credible as the approach of creationists to evolution. All these videos articles you cite are from people not qualified to give an opinion. It's just like Ken Hamm and that lot citing the opinions of electrical engineers on evolution.

    • 2 years ago
  • Quesadilla
  • Scrump
  • bombastinator
  • Scrump
  • Cacaoatl
    • 0
      Cacaoatl  
    • Scrump:

      And citing Alex Jones just weakens your argument. He's a conspiracy theorist in the same mold as Bill Kaysing and David Icke. The only people with valid opinions about climate change are climatologists and related fields such as ecology and environmental science. The opinions of people outside those fields are only as valid as the time they've spent studying those fields. Al Gore is not a scientist but it has done his homework and cites the work of actual scientists in climatology and related fields not kooks, conspiracy theorists, and scientists in unrelated fields.

    • 2 years ago
  • smallgod
    • 0
      smallgod  
    • Scrump:

      uhhhmmm, didn't you ever see the Futurama movie 'Into the Wild Green Yonder'? I'm sure Gore was able to supply his scientists with a 'money shower', too. Probably the best thing to do is talk to unbiased unpaid scientists who have nothing to prove/haven't been paid to prove anything.

    • 2 years ago
  • Cacaoatl
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • I find the holocaust argument interesting.
      The argument associating the word denier with the holocaust is so far fetched and strange a connection as to make me think there is another off board discussion going on.

      Someone may have run a direct mailing here or something. That is too odd a connection for a whole bunch of people to independently make. This really smells of manipulation of some kind.

    • 2 years ago
  • Cacaoatl
    • 0
      Cacaoatl  

    • ACS represents chemists. Chemists don't study climate. They study chemicals. Chemists may have an opinion on global warming but it can hardly qualify as an informed opinion. On the other hand, 96% of climatologists (who do study climate) accept anthropocentric climate change as an actual phenomenon.

    • 2 years ago
  • smallgod
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • Cacaoatl:

      Yes, but unless they are biochemists or otherwise specialize in a related field, they don't study how the chemicals in the atmosphere affects LIFE.

    • 2 years ago
  • Scrump
  • locutus
  • Cacaoatl
    • 0
      Cacaoatl  
    • Scrump:

      Schmitt is a geologist not a climatologist. He studies rocks not the climate. If he gave his opinion on the age of the Earth, I would trust his opinion. His opinion on the climate cannot be considered informed, he's never studied the subject.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  

    • INFO WARS! you're a disgrace to intelligence if you're looking for accurate information from that.

      "Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief."

      OH NO! dozens! from the largest scientific community in the world representing over 160,000 individuals, all of which were apparently promptly rebutted by other scientists as jones admits HIMSELF!

      AND IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE STUPID LETTERS YOU'LL SEE IT'S NOT THE GLOBAL WARMING THEY TAKE ISSUE WITH, IT'S THE EDITORS "PRESUMPTUOUS" WORDING! and the supposed "liberal slant"

      some of the authors even admit they aren't up to date on the latest information nor is it their field.

      "“disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”'

      I wonder what they'd call Alex Jones and Infowars.

    • 2 years ago
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • jh64487:

      "I wonder what they'd call Alex Jones and Infowars."

      Probably genuine researchers as opposed to people who just regurgitate Al Gore's carbon credit investment bank talking points or those who copy and paste from Cracked.com. Just saying you know...

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • jh64487:

      meh, if you say so, seems to me he puts up titles like "scientists reject global warming" when his own article and the letters he uses to support his claim say no such thing. a loony conspiracy nut.

      but hey, he's made for dupes right? plenty of those are given a voice now.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  

    • @scump

      Yeah we all learned about trees and CO2 in 1st grade. Let's advance the debate beyond grade school data.

      The question is not whether the earth will survive. The question is about the balance of life on the planet. How did humans fare 300M years ago? Was it natural change back then or were there prehistoric coal plants changing the natural balance of things?

    • 2 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  

    • Hey scrump did every consider that we might not be doing so well after this "natural" climate change to a high CO2 atmosphere? So why not do something to slow down the change? The bottom line in the world is things change when there is money to be made. Cap and trade may be a giant boondoggle but once the money is there the technology will follow. Figure out a way to reduce your carbon production and you can sell your cap space to someone else. It is the American way.

    • 2 years ago
  • Scrump
    • 0
      Scrump  

    • READ·READ·READ·READ·READ·READ·READ·READ

      Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require. Trees absorb CO2 and release O2 -- animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2. See how nice this all works! Earth's first, primitive forests made their prolific debut 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. Before then, the atmosphere held far more CO2 but concentrations declined throughout the Carboniferous Period as plants flourished. During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically.

      Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm -- still CO2-impoverished. Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason.

      "Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. It provides all of the food and most the energy for the human race. Carbon dioxide is a tiny part of the atmosphere, yet it sustains all life on earth. It is NOT a pollutant. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human". - Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist

      READ·READ·READ·READ·READ·READ·READ·READ

    • 2 years ago
  • locutus
  • bombastinator
  • Scrump
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  

    • @scump

      meanwhile, we'll just ignore all of the other problems that human produced CO2 creates. Maybe a better solution for your hypothesis is for humans to stop scalping the rain forest rather than pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    • 2 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  

    • Here's the problem that not too many people seem to know or care about.... The global ecosystem is delicate, and even a "measley" 27% higher level of CO2 than any other time in the last 650,000 years has adverse effects on our climate. The reason people don't like hearing arguments against global warming is because of the unbeleivable sense of urgency on the matter. There just no time to sit and explain over and over again to every single naysayer that pops up from the chemical science fields. And everyone acts like renewable energy is a bad thing while fossil fuel burning is so fantastic.

    • 2 years ago
  • Scrump
    • 0
      Scrump  

    • Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require. Trees absorb CO2 and release O2 -- animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2. See how nice this all works! Earth's first, primitive forests made their prolific debut 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. Before then, the atmosphere held far more CO2 but concentrations declined throughout the Carboniferous Period as plants flourished. During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically.

      Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm -- still CO2-impoverished. Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason.

      "Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. It provides all of the food and most the energy for the human race. Carbon dioxide is a tiny part of the atmosphere, yet it sustains all life on earth. It is NOT a pollutant. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human". - Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist

    • 2 years ago
  • mik661
  • chasingame
    • 0
      chasingame  

    • The ACS has members in many fields. Not just oil and petroleum as WakeUpPeople pointed out. They also work in pulp and paper, medicinal, textile, hazardous waste, and chemical engineering fields. We all know that these groups are always environmentally friendly as well. Right? ~sarcasm~

      There are a lot of people, even in scientific fields, that have incentives to look the other way.

      There is a chance that global warming may not be real but is that a chance that we can really take?

    • 2 years ago
  • Scrump
    • 0
      Scrump  

    • The Great Global Warming Swindle (1hr:15m)

      "An absolutely phenomenal documentary." Glenn Beck, Syndicated talk show host

      Everything you've ever been told about Global Warming is probably untrue. From Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to news reports from the popular media outlets and even public classrooms which, in chicken little fashion, are screaming - the sky is falling. But is it really?

      This documentary, which contraditcs these claims and has been described by some as the most explosive film of the year and the definitive answer to Al Gore features interviews from some of the Worlds leading scientists, climatologists and former environmentalist like: * Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama * Dr. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London * Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Instititue, Paris * Dr. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist University of Alabama * Dr. Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia * Dr. Syun-lchi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center * Dr. Fredrick Singer, First Director, U.S. National Weather Satellite Service * Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) * Dr. Tim Ball, Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnepeg * Dr. Niz Shaviv, Professor of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem * Dr. Ian Clark, Professor Department of Earth Sciences, Univertisy of Ottawa * Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace * Dr. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperalism: Green Power Black Death

      The Great Global Warming Swindle blows the whistle on what may be the biggest swindle in modern history. Proponets of man made global warming warn that climate change is the greatest threat ever to mankind, and, if we do not change our ways and reduce CO2 emissions - polar ice caps will melt, coastal areas will flood and hurricane like Katrina will become common.

      With nearly Gestapo like tactics we are commanded not to question the edicts of the ICCP (oops, sorry, the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). There is absolutely no room for doubt because there is a "scientific consensus." Anyone who questions the data or conclusion is an enemy of the state and humanity.

      Well, this is exactly what this well documented film does! Our challenge - watch this film and make up your own mind.

      "The Great Global Warming Swindle should be seen by everyone interested in the global enviroment, especially those who have seen the Al Gore movie." Professor William M. Gray, meterologist

    • 2 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  

    • Chemical Engineers. Not Climatologist. Not even scientists. Engineers whose jobs depend on the same industries contributing to climate change. People with vested interests in pretending that every thing is OK and if it isn't there Inst anything we could do about it anyway.

    • 2 years ago
  • Scrump
    • 0
      Scrump  

    • Global Warming or Global Governance? (1hr:21m) (2007)

      If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind was causing global warming, at least eight out of ten would say yes. After all, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth provides incontrovertible evidence that this is the case. Yet, contrary to what is heard in the media, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man’s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story. www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com

    • 2 years ago
  • locutus
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  

    • You mean the same CHEMICAL Society that works in the oil and petrolium field? I didn't realize that they were more knowledge in the field of climate studies than CLIMATologists.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • smallgod
  • Darevalo
more from Community:
from the community

top videos