# Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2010, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118 "2010-03-20T08:31:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/61 "2010-03-20T19:33:29Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Please provide me with a poll of any of those scientific organization’s complete membership body in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming. Otherwise you have nothing. Bullshit. In the 3 years since the last holdouts (the AAPG) issued their revised statement acknowledging the consensus, not one organisation has issued a retraction, had its council ousted or even had a motion to dissent registered, AFAIK. That’s better than any poll. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/62 "2010-03-21T00:26:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies | Greenfyre's](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/) All lies, **1. Greenfyre starts off with childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics “deniers”.** This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This tactic was popularized by Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe, _“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”_ - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007 [Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial?](http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=155) (FrontPage Magazine) [Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers’ Desperation](http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22221/Global_Warming_Ad_Hominem_Attacks_Show_Alarmist_Believers_Desperation.html) (The Heartland Institute) Lie - not peer reviewed, and/or. Truth - Every paper and journal is peer-reviewed. Lie - known to be false, and/or. Truth - None of the papers are known to be false. Lie - irrelevant, and/or. Truth - None of the papers are irrelevant. Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or. Truth - The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial. Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack [1]. All of the papers support skepticism of man-made global warming or the economic or environmental effects of. I’ve already rebutted all this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/63 "2010-03-21T00:31:29Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > The good ol’ Gish Gallop. “Here’s a giant bunch of stuff I made up - prove it wrong or I’m right!” I haven’t made anything up. I’ve actually asked for people like you to prove your right, something you have consistently failed to do. > [@BlackKnight](#): > > Once again I’m amazed at the similarities between global warming denialists and creationists. I am never amazed at these silly analogies. Since I am a firm supporter of evolution theory you are going to have to try much harder than that. > [@BlackKnight](#): > > **Poptech** , you are in desperate need of evidence in support of your data dump. Don’t try to shift the burden of proof. Don’t evade. I haven’t shifted anything, you have yet to provide evidence that the membership body of these scientific organizations support the position statements. The burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim. So prove it! ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/64 "2010-03-21T00:36:52Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > LOOK, peer Reviewed Climatology: > > The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, where everyone should go for all their climatological needs. Under the Socio-Economic section? Maybe you are confused but their are also papers on policy not just the science. > [@Squink](#): > > Or perhaps: > When come back, bring 500 refs that do what you say they do, and maybe consider doing a little reading around in the Journal of Information Ethics. Your information has a distinctly bogus taint to it. Or perhaps you can actually read the paper from the Journal of Information Ethics, something you have clearly never done. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/65 "2010-03-21T00:38:54Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > All lies, You are begining to sound like Frau Farbissina 🙂 > [@Poptech](#): > > **1. Greenfyre starts off with childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics “deniers”.** This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This tactic was popularized by Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe, As mentioned before, not all skeptics are deniers. But your actions demonstrate that indeed you are a denier. _“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”_ - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007 [/quote] Her complete quote: > **[The Boston Globe - Breaking News, Sports, Games, Obituaries](https://www.bostonglobe.com/)** > > Best live news, sports, opinion and entertainment in New England by Globe journalists. Read Spotlight Team investigations plus coverage of Celtics and Patriots. > [@](#): > > I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. So even there she does differentiate between Holocaust deniers. And the word denier is still applicable to the ones that deny the science behind global warming. The word was used first in the 15th century. > [@Poptech](#): > > Lie - not peer reviewed, and/or. > Truth - Every paper and journal is peer-reviewed. > > Lie - known to be false, and/or. > Truth - None of the papers are known to be false. > > Lie - irrelevant, and/or. > Truth - None of the papers are irrelevant. > > Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or. > Truth - The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. > > Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial. > Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack [1]. All of the papers support skepticism of man-made global warming or the economic or environmental effects of. > > I’ve already rebutted all this nonsense. Nope. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/66 "2010-03-21T00:49:26Z")
I guess the best way to deal with this is simple. Can you point to any scientific organization or any scientist group that has accepted your list? I mean, you should be able to point out how incredible clever that list since it is obvious that it should be approved or certified by some organization accepted as impartial. Otherwise you are just like Jeremy. That is the “nowhere man” from yellow submarine. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvLj72apGLI) ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/67 "2010-03-21T00:51:31Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > [Please tell me what percentage of the worlds glaciers are growing.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm) Here, add this into your percentage. > **[Growing Glaciers](https://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.html/)** > > Est. reading time: 25 minutes [http://www.physorg.com/news184585735.html](http://www.physorg.com/news184585735.html) [http://www.physorg.com/news184127915.html](http://www.physorg.com/news184127915.html) [http://www.surfacestations.org/odd\_sites.htm](http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/68 "2010-03-21T01:02:45Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > The burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim. So prove it! Bwuh? What claim are you talking about? And where did I make it? You have made claims about what thousands of scientists say, only to have it shown that many of the people listed are not even scientists. In short, your data are clearly flawed and you have failed to support your initial post. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/69 "2010-03-21T01:05:56Z")
A few more glaciers that are advancing. Mount Shasta > **[National and Local Weather Radar, Daily Forecast, Hurricane and information...](https://weather.com/)** > > The Weather Channel and weather.com provide a national and local weather forecast for cities, as well as weather radar, report and hurricane coverage Himalayan [http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html](http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html) Whitney Glacier > **[A growing glacier](https://american-west.livejournal.com/16270.html)** > > Mount Shasta bucks global trend, and researchers cite warming phenomena By David Whitney - Bee Washington Bureau Monday, September 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Whitney Glacier on Mount Shasta is growing, and scientists think global warming in Northern... Norway [http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html](http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html) Pakistan-China border [http://omaha.com/article/20091217/NEWS01/712179868](http://omaha.com/article/20091217/NEWS01/712179868) Eighty seven of the glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s. [http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/03/10/glaciers-are-growing-not-melting-more-falsehoods-from-al-gore-robert-w-felix/](http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/03/10/glaciers-are-growing-not-melting-more-falsehoods-from-al-gore-robert-w-felix/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/70 "2010-03-21T01:08:07Z")
> [@KNO3](#): > > Here, add this into your percentage. > > [Growing Glaciers](http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm) Just the second link is based on the very misleading point about the Himalayan glaciers. Not very reliable, it seems that it is falling into cherry picking, even if there is clearly a retreat on most glaciers, there are some exceptions, however those exceptions are not enough for one to say that overall there is no reduction of the glaciers. > **[File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png)** > > The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back. > ... > [@KNO3](#): > > [http://www.physorg.com/news184585735.html](http://www.physorg.com/news184585735.html) Ah yes, the government of Netherlands complaining to the IPCC for using data that was furnished by the Netherlands. > **[RealClimate: IPCC errors: facts and spin](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/)** > > RealClimate: IPCC AR4 errors, glaciergate, amazongate > [@](#): > > Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error. > [@KNO3](#): > > [http://www.physorg.com/news184127915.html](http://www.physorg.com/news184127915.html) And here is virtually the only bona fide error found from the last IPCC report, still it was shameful that it was climate scientists who caught it instead of the diligent deniers. > **[RealClimate: IPCC errors: facts and spin](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/)** > > RealClimate: IPCC AR4 errors, glaciergate, amazongate > [@](#): > > Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report. > [@KNO3](#): > > [http://www.surfacestations.org/odd\_sites.htm](http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm) [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so\_thats\_why\_surfacestationsor.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php) > [@](#): > > So that’s why [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org) hasn’t published > > It’s been over two years since John V, used the [surfacestations.org](http://surfacestations.org) data to show that the warming trends were the same for “good” and “bad” weather stations. Since then they’ve collected data on more stations, but still have not published their own comparison. It would be cynical of me to suggest that the reason is that the data doesn’t show what they want, but now Menne et al have published a peer reviewed paper analysing a more extensive set of stations, and surprise, surprise the “bad” stations have a cooling bias. John Cook has the details. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/71 "2010-03-21T01:19:25Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Or perhaps you can actually read the paper from the Journal of Information Ethics, something you have clearly never done. It’s right there in my link, in [pdf](http://www.donaldmiller.com/The_Government_Grant_System.pdf) format, and it’s a goddamn diatribe, not a piece of actual climate research: > [@](#): > > The human-caused global warming paradigm is most likely false (Soon et al., 2001; Editorial, 2006). Two climate astrophysicists, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, present evidence that shows the climate of the 20th century fell within the range experienced during the past 1,000 years. Compared with other cen- turies, it was not unusual (Soon and Baliunas, 2003). Unable to obtain grants from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Soon (personal communication, August 31, 2006) observes that NASA funds programs mainly on social-political reasoning rather than science. Next time you try to point us out a pile of climate change gold, at least make an effort to not point out a pile of shit through your own ignorance. The two substances look different to anyone not predisposed to roll around in feces and call himself Midas. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/72 "2010-03-21T01:30:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As mentioned before, not all skeptics are deniers. But your actions demonstrate that indeed you are a denier. Slanderous > [@GIGObuster](#): > > _“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”_ - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007 > > …So even there she does differentiate between Holocaust deniers. LMAO! She clearly makes the comparison. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And the word denier is still applicable to the ones that deny the science behind global warming. That is illogical because no one is denying science based on empirical measurement. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope. Yes, every single lie from Greenfyre has been refuted. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Can you point to any scientific organization or any scientist group that has accepted your list? That is just a bizarre request. Anyone with an ounce of education can clearly see the papers referenced are properly cited and linked. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I mean, you should be able to point out how incredible clever that list since it is obvious that it should be approved or certified by some organization accepted as impartial. The impossibility would be to find an organization that people on both sides of the issue would consider to be impartial. The reality is despite alarmist lies, [extensive peer-reviewed papers](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) exist supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/73 "2010-03-21T01:50:52Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Slanderous Well then a simple test: Do you agree with what Patric Michael says in this video: [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/QwnrpwctIh4](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/QwnrpwctIh4) > [@Poptech](#): > > That is illogical because no one is denying science based on empirical measurement. The video is BTW a perfect point of that. The skeptic scientist is actually \*\*blasting \*\*deniers for continuing to affirm that there has been no warming since 1995 or 1998 or that the current warming has no human cause. As for the rest, just your attempt to repeat the same with no evidence to support it. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/74 "2010-03-21T01:51:29Z")
More glaciers growing Alaska Glaciers Growing [http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article\_21685.shtml](http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_21685.shtml) Mount Saint Helens Growing [http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html](http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html) France and Switzerland Growing [http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html](http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html) Perito Moreno Growing > **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F06%2F15%2Fperito-moreno-the-glacier_n_215494.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/75 "2010-03-21T01:58:51Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > It’s right there in my link, in [pdf](http://www.donaldmiller.com/The_Government_Grant_System.pdf) format, and it’s a goddamn diatribe, not a piece of actual climate research: What part of socio-economic do you not understand? Pretending that the papers in the socio-economic section represent the climate research in the scientific ones is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Try harder next time. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/76 "2010-03-21T02:01:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well then a simple test: > > Do you agree with what Patric Michael says in this video: > > [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman)… I don’t agree with anything from a video made by an Al Gore disciple. But in I generally agree with **Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC** says, [Climate of Extremes](http://fora.tv/2009/03/12/Climate_of_Extremes) (Video) (60min) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology) [Global Warming: Correcting the Data](http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n3/v31n3-2.pdf) (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology) [Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf) (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/77 "2010-03-21T02:02:29Z")
> [@KNO3](#): > > More glaciers growing > > Alaska Glaciers Growing > [http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article\_21685.shtml](http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_21685.shtml) > > Mount Saint Helens Growing > [http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html](http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html) > > France and Switzerland Growing > [http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html](http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html) > > Perito Moreno Growing > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/perito-moreno-the-glacier\_n\_215494.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/perito-moreno-the-glacier_n_215494.html) Keep repeating it, it will maybe change the overall conclusion.. [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm) > [@](#): > > Mt. Shasta dominates the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California. > > While it’s not California’s tallest mountain, the tongues of ice creeping down Shasta’s volcanic flanks give the solitary mountain another distinction. Its seven glaciers, referred to by American Indians as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth, are the only historical glaciers in the continental U.S. known to be growing. > > \*\*With global warming causing the retreat of glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, Mt. Shasta is actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean. \*\* > > \*\*“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,” said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz. \*\* > > “These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/78 "2010-03-21T02:04:41Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > I don’t agree with anything from a video made by an Al Gore disciple. But in I generally agree with Pat Michaels. You really need to see the video, I do not think that you would agree with what he says to deniers. “So, warming has happened in the last part of the 20th century and humans had to do with it, now get over it!” ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/79 "2010-03-21T02:09:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You really need to see the video, I do not think that you would agree with what he says to deniers. > > “So, warming has happened in the last part of the 20th century and humans had to do with it, now get over it!” Typical propaganda. His argument is how much they had to do with it, how much is CO2 related and how bad will the consequences be. His conclusions are there is nothing much to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![KNO3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@KNO3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KNO3)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118/80 "2010-03-21T02:12:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Keep repeating it, it will maybe change the overall conclusion.. > > [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm) Wait. Are you saying that these all glaciers that are growing is caused by global warming? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thousands-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-global-warming/533118.md?page=5)