posted March 21, 2006 05:28 PM            

Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0)

105th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 98
[Report No. 105-54]

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 25, 1997

Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FORD, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BOND, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. LOTT, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. REID, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. CAMPBELL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

July 21, 1997

Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

July 25, 1997

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';

Whereas in April 1995, the Convention's `Conference of the Parties' adopted the so-called `Berlin Mandate';

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' calls for the adoption, as soon as December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, of a protocol or another legal instrument that strengthens commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the post-2000 period and establishes a negotiation process called the `Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate';

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;

Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs called for the first time for `legally binding' emission limitation targets and timetables for Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of State in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;

Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015;

Whereas the Department of State has declared that it is critical for the Parties to the Convention to include Developing Country Parties in the next steps for global action and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of additional steps to include limitations on Developing Country Parties' greenhouse gas emissions would not begin until after a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997;

Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed;

Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

posted March 21, 2006 05:39 PM            

1. Is global warming occurring? Have the forecasts of global warming been confirmed by actual measurements?

There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2

2. Are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change? Can the Earth's temperature be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century as has been reported?

There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.4

3. Under the Berlin Mandate, developing nations are to be exempt from any emission reduction requirements agreed to in Kyoto. What effect will this have on overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next thirty years?

Undeveloped countries such as China, India and Brazil are included in this exemption. However, they are projected to produce 16 percent more carbon dioxide by the year 2020 than the United States, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not in place.5

4. Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?

According to the World Bank, one-third of the world's population already suffers from chronic water shortages. The Worldwatch Institute predicts that this situation will be exacerbated further by the addition of an estimated 2.6 billion people to the world's population over the next 30 years. By 2025, the group claims, some three billion people -- or 40% of the world's population -- could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies, leading to crop failures, diminished economic development and even to regional conflicts as nations find it necessary to fight for control over scarce water resources.

While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. Global warming, therefore, could offer the answer to the water scarcity problem that the Worldwatch Institute has been seeking.

If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Evidence of this was found in 1993 when scientists from the National Science Foundation-sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project II extracted an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100,000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates. Prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to the temperatures general circulation models used by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have projected for 2030-2050. Yet, the world's leaders stand poised to take dramatic steps to curb the risks of this kind of climate change.

Global warming could also mean greater agricultural productivity and greater water conservation. CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere). Thus, with global warming, agricultural output could be expected to increase while making less demands on the water supply.6

5. What would be the economic impact of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol?

If the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by the U.S., the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates gasoline prices would rise 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year 2010, electricity prices would go up 20 to 86 percent7 and compliance with the treaty would cost the United States economy $400 billion per year.8

6. If the United States can meet the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with little or no costs, why haven't corporations done so on their own?

This question is irrelevant, since abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would be devastating to our economy. However, supposing it was economically responsible to adopt it, we still must never base environmental actions on anything but sound science. We have ample experience of doing more harm than good with environmental regulations based on unsure science. For example, the Clean Air Act mandated oxygenates in gasoline and we ended up with no improvement in air quality but now have the oxygenate MTBE polluting wells in 31 states.9,10,11

We should not take actions that may not be necessary but will certainly increase the level of poverty in this. As economist Walter Williams of George Mason University has observed, "As you look around the world, it is poverty, as opposed to dirty air, that has implications for health."12

7. Are the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol are distributed fairly?

No, the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol would fall most heavily on minorities. A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations found that the increased costs forced by the treaty would cut minority income in the United States by 10 percent (in contrast, white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.13

8. Is there scientific consensus that global warming is underway? If so, how was this consensus determined?

Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."14 The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.

Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."15

Footnotes

posted March 21, 2006 05:48 PM            

National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC): Climate Change Impacts on the United States

Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer

July 18, 2000

President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project www.sepp.org

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Fred Singer. I am Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in Fairfax, Virginia, a non-partisan, non-profit research group of independent scientists. We work without salaries and are not beholden to anyone or any organization. SEPP does not solicit support from either government or industry but relies on contributions from individuals and foundations.

We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change."

Others try to discredit scientific skeptics by lumping them together with fringe political groups. Such ad hominem attacks are deplorable and have no place in a scientific debate.
To counter such misrepresentations, I list here qualifications relevant to today's hearing.

Relevant Background

I hold a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. For more than 40 years I have researched and published in atmospheric and space physics. I received a Special Commendation from President Eisenhower for the early design of satellites. In 1962, I established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, served as its first director, and received a Gold Medal award from the Department of Commerce for this contribution.

Early in my career, I devised instruments to measure atmospheric parameters from satellites. In 1971, I proposed that human production of the greenhouse gas methane, through cattle raising and rice growing, could affect the climate system. This was also the first publication to discuss an anthropogenic influence on stratospheric ozone. In the late 1980s, I served as Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation and also provided expert advice to the White House on climate issues.

Today, by presenting evidence from published peer-reviewed work, I will try to rectify some erroneous claims advanced at the May 17 NACC hearing.

1. There is no Appreciable Climate Warming

Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:

a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.

b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].

c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.

d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.

Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years.

2. Regional Changes in Temperature, Precipitation, and Soil Moisture?

The absence of a current global warming trend should serve to discredit any predictions from current climate models, including the extreme warming from the two models (Canadian and British) selected for the NACC.

Furthermore, the two NACC models give conflicting predictions, most often for precipitation and soil moisture [2,3]. For example, the Dakotas lose 85% of their current average rainfall by 2100 in one model, while the other shows a 75% gain. Half of the 18 regions studied show such opposite results; several others show huge differences. [see graph]

The soil moisture predictions also differ. The Canadian model shows a drier Eastern US in summer, the UK Hadley model a wetter one.

Conclusion: We must conclude that regional forecasts from climate models are beyond the state of the art and are even less reliable than those for the global average. Since the NACC scenarios are based on such forecasts, the NACC projections are not credible.

3. Sea Level Rise: Controlled by Nature not Humans

The most widely feared and also most misunderstood consequence of a hypothetical greenhouse warming is an accelerated rise in sea levels. But several facts contradict this conventional view:

a) Global average sea level has risen about 400 feet (120 meters) in the past 15,000 years, as a result of the end of the Ice Age. The initial rapid rise of about 200 cm (80 inches) per century gradually changed to a slower rise of 15­20 cm (6-8 in)/cy about 7500 years ago, once the large ice masses covering North America and North Europe had melted away. But the slow melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet continued and will continue, barring another ice age, until it has melted away in about 6000 years.

b) This means that the world is stuck with a sea level rise of about 18 cm (7 in)/cy, just what was observed during the past century. And there is nothing we can do about it, any more than we can stop the ocean tides.

c) Careful analysis shows that the warming of the early 1900s actually slowed this ongoing SL rise [4], likely because of increased ice accumulation in the Antarctic.

The bottom line: Currently available scientific evidence does not support any of the results of the NACC, which should therefore be viewed merely as a "what if" exercise, similar to the one conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993 [5]. Such exercises deserve only a modest amount of effort and money; one should not shortchange the serious research required for atmospheric and ocean observations, and for developing better climate models.

The NACC should definitely NOT be used to justify irrational and unscientific energy and environmental policies, including the economically damaging Kyoto Protocol. These policy recommendations are especially appropriate during the coming presidential campaigns and debates.

I respectfully request that an expanded exposition [6] be made part of my written record.

Footnotes:

1. National Research Council. "Reconciling Temperature Trends" National Academy Press, Washington, DC. January 2000

2. R. Kerr. "Dueling Models: Future U.S. Climate Uncertain." Science 288, 2113, 2000

3. P.H. Stone. "Forecast Cloudy: The Limits of Global Climate Models." Technology Review (MIT), Feb/March 1992. pp. 32-40.

4. S.F. Singer. Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate. (The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA (second edition, p. 18).

5. Office of Technology Assessment. "Preparing for an Uncertain Climate" Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 1993

6. S.F. Singer. "Climate Policy-From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000-and Beyond" Hoover Institution Essay in Public Policy No. 102, Stanford, CA, 2000.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

posted March 21, 2006 06:31 PM            

jwhop, thank you for posting the facts. I've had debates along these lines in and out of school - yet the opposition always seems to be people that don't have a science background, they hate corportations and feel that killing off our farms / companies will some how solve all the worlds problems. Again, they don't realize that what we push out of the US will be taken up by another country (like China and India) where they are exempt from the same rules we must play by.

Therefore the ozone layer will deplete faster, the polar ice caps will melt quicker and we will all have to evolve into filtered humans capable of breathing in CO2. LOL....

I guess in truth, many of these people really just live by the NIMBY rules ( NOT IN MY BACK YARD). What will happen when we can no longer produce enough to sustain ourselves, yet we are breathing in toxic fumes from Mexico?

Living here in Bisbee (about 8 miles from the Naco, Mexico border) we have to deal with that periodically. The cars come over our border from Mexico using a grade of gas that we would put into our lawn-mowers. They have a huge dump that catches on fire at least 3 times a year (usually their forklift that churns the waste runs out of gas and the waste then combusts. They won't do crap until our guys go across the border, give them gas and a nice fat check). So in the meantime, we have to sit there and breath the noxious fumes for 3 days (they like to wait to let us over to clean up their mess).

That is just the small scale problem. Although Mexico is SOUTH their wind blow UP. That means, any chemical warfare, fire, bio-weapon etc.. that is released along the border hits AZ, CA, NM and Texas first.

posted March 21, 2006 06:40 PM              

thanks for enlightening me. ...

and you are right anything good..gets ignored..as if it's false..it seems we are doing a darn good job..considering all the circumstances..

posted March 21, 2006 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

I'll just meekly sit in the corner while the geniuses map out my future

---

posted March 22, 2006 10:59 PM            

Regarding SEPP-
"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program
Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." [19] (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3207&method=full)

In 2000 SEPP wrote on their web site:

"SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources. Income is derived mainly from charitable foundations and private individuals. Some income is derived also from SEPP conference fees and the sale of books and reports to the public. As a non-profit educational and research 501(c) 3 organization, accepting tax-deductible contributions, SEPP is required to file an annual report with the IRS. SEPP operates on a modest budget; its officers and associated scientists do not receive salaries but contribute their services on a pro bono basis." [20] (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/COP6.htm)

ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 [21] (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html) and 2000 [22] (http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65).

********
The National Center for Public Policy Research - Also funded by ExxonMobil.. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research

"In 2002 ExxonMobil donated $30,000 for "educational activities" and a further $15,000 for general support. [3] (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf)

In 2003 the company boosted its general operating support to $25,000 with another $30,000 for 'global climate change/EnviroTruth website"

posted March 23, 2006 12:10 AM            

Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center

Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.

Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University

Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center

John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA

H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM

Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois

Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University

Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute

Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director

Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service

Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University

Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services

Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force

Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service

Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board

Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation

Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.

William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University

David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist

Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.

Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center

Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University

David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma

Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist

Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM

Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College

James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering

Brian Sussman, Meteorologist

Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society

H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist

Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University

Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist

William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project

posted March 23, 2006 12:53 AM              

quote:

---

Prof. S. Fred Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990.
In February 1992 SEPP published the "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming"

---

posted March 23, 2006 01:12 PM            

Now, what were early humans doing 25,000 years ago that caused the sudden warming cycle which ended the last ice age?

What were humans doing in 1200AD which set off the "little ice age" and sent temperatures spiraling downward for the next 700 years?

Why is it that temperatures are cooler now than they were between 1000AD and 1200AD and why have temperatures declined from a peak occurring about 1940?

Why is it that CO2 emissions have skyrocketed...starting in about 1979 and ascending on a steep line, while temperatures are actually flat or declining slightly?

Why aren't observable temperatures consistent with the meddling leftist global warming nuts computer model predictions?

posted March 23, 2006 02:57 PM            

quote:

---

This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set TaveGL2v was used. The most recent documentation for this data set is Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003) "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate, 16, 206-223.

---

quote:

---

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. ...

---

posted March 23, 2006 03:13 PM            

This article by reporter Marc Morano originally appeared at CNSNews.com.

The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife.

Scientist James Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.

But Scott Pelley, the "60 Minutes" reporter who profiled Hansen and detailed his accusations of censorship on the March 19, edition of the newsmagazine, made no mention of Hansen's links to Kerry and Gore and none to the fact that Kerry's wife - Teresa Heinz Kerry - had been one of Hansen's benefactors.

Pelley's "Rewriting the Science" segment focused on Hansen's allegations that the Bush administration was preventing his views from becoming publicized because it did not like his conclusions. Hansen's complaints were first publicized in January.
"In my more than three decades in the government, I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," Hansen told Pelley.

But Hansen had made similar claims of another Republican White House allegedly censoring his views. In 1989, Hansen claimed that President Bush's father - then-President George H. W. Bush - was censoring his climate research. Kerry and about a dozen other senators eventually co-signed a letter written by Gore, who was also a senator at the time, demanding an explanation for the alleged censorship.

Hansen has previously acknowledged that he supported the "emphasis on extreme scenarios" regarding climate change models in order to drive the public's attention to the issue, but Pelley's "60 Minutes" report made no mention of that admission.

"Not only are [Hansen's] apocalyptic predictions not coming true, but more and more countries are beginning to realize that they will destroy their economies just under Kyoto 1, to prevent about 0.1 degrees of warming," Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death, told Cybercast News Service.

"Hansen's rants might still garner headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times, and raves from CBS - especially if you believe every beetle infestation, forest fire, cold snap, hot flash, dry spell, flood, frog death and malaria outbreak is due to global warming - but they're complete hogwash," Driessen said.

In endorsing Kerry's presidential bid late in the 2004 campaign, Hansen conceded that it could harm his reputation. "Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign." according to the Oct. 26, 2004, edition of the New York Times.

In a speech delivered on that same day, Hansen praised the Massachusetts senator, declaring that "John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face."

Three years earlier, Hansen had accepted the $250,000 Heinz Award granted by the foundation run by Kerry's wife Teresa. But the same day Hansen publicly endorsed Sen. John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004, the New York Times quoted Hansen as saying that the grant from the Heinz Foundation had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."

But George C. Deutsch, who served as a spokesman for NASA until resigning in February, said he quickly learned that "Dr. Hansen and his supporters have a very partisan agenda and ties reaching to the top of the Democratic Party." Deutsch resigned his post earlier this year following a controversy surrounding a false resume claim that he graduated from Texas A&M University.

Deutsch also denied that the Bush administration was clamping down on scientific views that did not support its preferred conclusions.

"There is no pressure or mandate from the Bush administration or elsewhere, to alter or water down scientific data at NASA, period," Deutsch said, according to a Feb. 11, article in the Washington Post. Instead, he said, there existed a "culture war" at the federal agency.

"Anyone perceived to be a Republican, a Bush supporter or a Christian is singled out and labeled a threat to their views. I encourage anyone interested in this story to consider the other side, to consider Dr. Hansen' s true motivations and to consider the dangerous implications of only hearing out one side of the global warming debate," Deutsch added.

Hansen fired back at Deutsch's assertions in an online statement published in February, calling Deutsch's claims "nonsense."

"I can be accurately described as moderately conservative," Hansen wrote, while acknowledging that he had endorsed Kerry for president in 2004 "because he recognized global warming problem."

Hansen stated that he had great respect for former Vice President Al Gore, noting that he met with Gore in January 2006 and ended up consulting Gore on his climate change slide show presentations.

"I have great respect for Vice President Gore and his dedication to communicating the importance of global warming. He has a better understanding of the science of global warming than any politician I have met, and I urge citizens to pay attention to his presentation, which I understand will come out in the form of a movie," Hansen wrote.

Hansen wrote that his only two political contributions were to Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and to either the 2000 Al Gore presidential run or the Kerry 2004 campaign. "I don't remember which," Hansen stated.

Hansen, described by Pelley in the "60 Minutes" report as an "independent," also reportedly refused to go along the Clinton administration on the issue of "global warming." The Clinton administration "wanted to hear that warming was worse than it was," Pelley reported.

In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, Hansen appeared to be justifying the past use of climate models to scare the public into believing the "global warming" problem was urgent.

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue," Hansen wrote in 2004. "Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."

Patrick J. Michaels, the author of several books on climate change, including the recently published "Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming," declared that Hansen has "advocated the use of exaggeration and propaganda as political tools in the debate over global warming."

Michaels, who leveled his charges in a Feb. 21 commentary entitled "Hansen's Hot Hype," wrote that "Hansen thought the public should be subjected to nightmare scenarios regardless of the scientific likelihood of catastrophe, simply in order to gain people's attention."

Michaels, who believes claims of catastrophic, human-caused "global warming" are scientifically unfounded, is a climatologist at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Michaels has previously credited Hansen with taking a more moderate stance toward climate change. "The irony is that, in recent years, Hansen's positions on global warming have come increasingly in line with those of the administration he claims is censoring him," Michaels said.

Several attempts to contact Hansen for comment were not returned. Telephone calls to Bill Owens and Catherine Herrick, the two CBS News employees who produced Pelley's "60 Minutes" segment, were referred to the network media affairs office.

"60 Minutes" spokesman Kevin Tedesco defended the segment, telling Cybercast News Service that "it was a fair and accurate report."

A call to reporter Scott Pelley was not returned by press time.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/23/112725.shtml?s=ic

posted March 23, 2006 03:18 PM            

Now, what were early humans doing 25,000 years ago that caused the sudden warming cycle which ended the last ice age?

What were humans doing in 1200AD which set off the "little ice age" and sent temperatures spiraling downward for the next 700 years?

Why is it that temperatures are cooler now than they were between 1000AD and 1200AD and why have temperatures declined from a peak occurring about 1940?

Why is it that CO2 emissions have skyrocketed...starting in about 1979 and ascending on a steep line, while temperatures are actually flat or declining slightly?

posted March 23, 2006 03:42 PM            

They can't answer that. They don't have the information and like most activist minded people they deal only with the theoretical.

Harpyr's graphic representation is only based on theoretical equations and it states as such in the summary. No one knows the temperature range during those times documented over the last 2000 year with the exception of what we have been able to document over the past 100 or so years.

Everything else is speculation with a theory attached to it. A theory is not proven and science is all about 'proving facts'. In order to be a fact it has to pass a series of tests that are reproducable. This is not the case with the example - not on a small scale and not on a BIG scale.

Those that countered and added that I should pay Harpyr money didn't even get the gist of my post. Sure, we can dismantle ALL the foul companies in the US - but guess what - they WILL produce in places like China, Mexico and India. Those countries to not have HALF of our strict regulations when it comes to the environment. SO, if their theories are correct (which they aren't) and we succeed in kicking out the corporations, ranches and whatever else makes their illogical panties get into a bunch, what will they do when the atmosphere becomes 100 times more toxic since we can't regulate those countries mentioned?

They can't possibly think that America will be protected (as if we have some sort of bio-shield around our country) and we will be breathing in their fumes.

Harpyr you hurt yourself when you state that you won't believe a study that was conducted in 1992 because it is 14 years old. Do you think we somehow went from 0-60 in such a short amount of time when in this country we have instituted stricter laws, moved out more factories, and built cars that produce less smog / toxins? Would you also discount a study that showed an antibiotic killed the majority of bacterial organisms because the last time it was conducted was back in 1950 something? (Penicillin)

jwhop.. it really is a waste of time because no matter how many fact (once again) you post or volumes of studies that have been produced, we will keep hearing the same mantra "It is Bush's fault (even though some of the most toxic spills and pollution occured during Clinton's reign) he bought off the scientist, and I still can't believe some numb-nut actually bought into to that. We hear "the science lies, unless it is a theory based on no real data, but supports our argument" etc...

Oh well..... some things never change.