posted April 06, 2006 03:09 PM            

And yet, these prophecies of the left are nowhere found in the Christian Bible nor is any support found there for their pronouncements.

The Church of Global Warming
By Mark Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 6, 2006

Preachers used to warn of divine judgment if sinners did not repent and turn to God.

Now, increasingly, preachers of the Left are instead warning of cataclysmic climate change if polluters (especially of the American variety) do not abandon economic growth and yield to the most apocalyptic scenarios of the environmental movement.

President Bush, of course, is the main King Ahab against whom these prophets of doom now prophesy.

The most recent prophecy, in March, came from the Church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury. Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of nearly 80 million Anglicans worldwide, warned that politicians, i.e. Bush, might precipitate the deaths of "billions" of people if they do not go sufficiently green.

According to Ecumenical News International, Williams declared that Bush's supposed refusal to cut greenhouse emissions was not compatible with Christianity.

"We very often come across situations where people are judged for not responding to warnings," the archbishop said. "I think what the Bible and the Christian tradition suggest is that those who have that challenge put before them, and not only that challenge but the evidence of it, and don't respond," Williams said, "bear a very heavy responsibility before God."

"Nobody likes talking about governmental coercion in this respect, whether it is speed limits or anything else," he said. "Nobody, for that matter, likes talking about enforceable international protocols."

But "unless there is a real change in attitudes," Williams added, "we have to contemplate these very unwelcome possibilities if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions, of people not to die."

Not even the most extreme environmental pressure groups typically have the nerve to claim a potential death toll of "billions" if warnings of Global Warming are not heeded. But bishops and theologians, used to speaking in the parlance of the Almighty, are often more given to hyperbole and flamboyant exaggeration than are their secular allies.

Many Western church prelates of the Left are open to debate the authority of Scriptures and the central doctrines of Christianity. But for them, the latest and most extreme doomsday scenarios of the environmentalist movement must be accepted unquestioningly. Otherwise, they warn, a very, very hot Judgement Day is coming, in the form of Global Warming.

Last year, the presiding bishop of the 5 million member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America appropriately used Earth Day, which he called the "Earth's Easter," to summon Lutherans to the altar call of Global Warming. Bishop Mark Hanson insisted that "our liturgical celebration of Earth Day" was a "matter of life and death," with the threat of climate change drawing nigh.

Citing an Arctic tribe of Lutherans whose village supposedly will soon be inundated by melting ice, Bishop Hanson warned of a similar deluge of sorts for millions of others around the globe. That is, unless they repent.

"The forces unleashed by global climate change are literally washing away the earth," the bishop somberly preached, like Noah of old. "How will the rest of us respond to global climate change and its threat to the well-being of all creatures and species around the earth?" he asked darkly.

Bishop Hanson called "all Americans to acknowledge our sinful complicity in producing one-quarter of the world’s carbon emissions, which exacerbate global warming, even though we are only five percent of the planet’s human population." The prelate's sermonizing, though phrased in the verbiage of religiosity, was drawn from the usual talking points of the Green Left.

"We are committed to repent of our own sinful misuse and abuse of the Earth, direct and indirect," Hanson intoned. "We do this especially for the sake of the poor of the earth, working on their behalf, even as we contend with entrenched political, economic, and social forces."

The identity of these demonic and "entrenched" forces went unnamed by Hanson, at least this time, but the names are easily imagined: Bush, the United States, oil companies, and perhaps the Religious Right, whose mindless denizens supposedly want to pollute and heat the planet until the Second Coming.

This "false gospel" of conservative religious believers who are allegedly more concerned about personal salvation than the salvation of a groaning Earth was the special target of select theologians assembled by the National Council of Churches. They gathered in Washington, D.C. in February 2005, only weeks before Hanson's liturgical Earth Day prophecy. And they too called for repentance by a polluting America, in a declaration called "God's Earth is Sacred."

"We have abused and exploited the Earth and people on the margins of power and privilege, altering climates, extinguishing species, and jeopardizing Earth's capacity to sustain life as we know and love it," the NCC's green prophets proclaimed. Like many pronouncements from the Religious Left, it draped its condemnation of U.S. policies in the pious language of self-mortification. The "we repent" rhetorical ploy is actually a wagging finger pointed at the non-believers who are ignoring the Religious Left's prophecies and provoking Mother Earth's heated fury.

The NCC green prophets naturally pointed out that any authentic "repentance of our social and ecological sins" must acknowledge the "special responsibility" of the earth's polluter in chief: the United States. Besides spewing out black emissions that are going to microwave the earth, the U.S. is busily perpetuating "scandalous inequities at home and abroad."

How can America repent for its complicity in Global Warming? The "repentance" required by the Religious Left includes all the demands of the secular Green Left: comply with the Kyoto Accord, reduce economic growth, regulate the economy more, increase taxes, reduce U.S. sovereignty, maximize U.S. aid to the supposed global victims of America's pollution and greed.

Perhaps, then, a benevolent Mother Earth will withhold her anger, and spare a repentant America and the rest of the world from Her divine judgment of Global Warming, with its rising sea levels, withering crops, increased disease and pestilence, and, as Archbishop Williams warned, "billions" of deaths.

posted April 06, 2006 05:32 PM            

The people who brought you Smokey the Bear urge citizen action to forestall climate change.

April 4, 2006
Modified:April 4, 2006

Summary

Two new Public Service Announcements released by the Ad Council say global warming could produce irreversible changes as soon as 30 years from now, and they urge individual citizens to take action.

The ads correctly summarize the bulk of scientific opinion, which holds that the earth will warm by 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) sometime in the next 20 to 54 years, and that this warming will be accompanied by severe weather events. It's not so clear what the ad's viewers can do about that.

Analysis

On March 23, 2006, the Ad Council and Environmental Defense announced the start of a new public service campaign to raise awareness of global warming and educate individuals on what they can do to help.

Environmental Defense is a non-profit environmental advocacy group that has focused on the issue of global warming for several years. The Ad Council is a non-profit public service group that helps coordinate advocacy campaigns with various sponsors. Past campaigns have targeted such things as drunk driving and forest fires with the "Friends Don't let Friends Drive Drunk" and "Smokey the Bear" ads.

Is the Globe Warming?

The central message for the campaign, as explained on the Ad Council's website, is that "The most respected scientific organizations have stated unequivocally that global warming is happening, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests." That is correct.

Indeed, that conclusion is supported both by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the top science advisers of 11 leading industrial nations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The IPCC is a UN organization which connects experts from around the world to study climate change, and includes the work of hundreds of contributors for its reports. Their most recent report, released in 2001, stated that the earth has warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) during the 20th century and that there was "new and stronger evidence" that human activity was the cause.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences is a society of scholars chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government. In 2001 the NAS, in a report requested by the Bush White House, said :

National Academy of Sciences, 2001: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

In June 2005, the science academies of 11 leading industrial nations (including the NAS)issued a joint statement urging prompt action on climate change:

Joint Statement, 2005: There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring ... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.

Together, the two ads say that within 30 years the planet could see irreversible changes bringing severe weather events including heat waves, droughts and hurricanes. They also urge viewers to visit a website to learn what to do.

“Consequences are only 30 years away.”

The ad "Train" states, "Some say that irreversible consequences are only 30 years away." That's a fair characterization; mainstream scientific opinion holds that big changes could happen that soon.

quote:

---

Ad Council ad "Train"

(On Screen: Camera cuts between images of trees, grass and the outdoors)
Man: Global Warming

( On Screen: A speeding train )
Man: Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away.
( On Screen: Camera cuts between grass and train )
Man : 30 years? That won't affect me.
( On Screen: Train rushes forward behind man. He steps out of the way to reveal a child behind him and in the way of the train )
( On Screen: The words "There's still time. Fight Global Warming.)

---

IPCC Report, 2001: Results from coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models driven by a variety of GHG (greenhouse gas) emission scenarios indicate that the Earth will have warmed by 2 degrees Celsius relative to the 'pre-industrial' era (and by 1.3 degrees Celsius relative to the present) sometime between 2026 and 2060 . Much of this range is caused by uncertainties in future GHG emissions. To the extent that the global community continues to follow a "business-as-usual" path with a heavy reliance on fossil fuels and does not seek to limit GHG emissions, the climate will pass the 2 degree Celsius threshold sooner rather than later.

That's not a unanimous conclusion, however. The IPCC report notes reservations of some experts who think the science is not definitive enough to say temperatures will rise that quickly. One such dissenter is J. Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists as well a contributing author of the IPCC report. He also maintains the World Climate Report blog, and is a fellow at the free-market, libertarian Cato Institute.

"Massive Heat Waves . . . Severe Drought . . . Devastating Hurricanes"

The "Tick" ad projects the message that today's children will grow up to be confronted by "massive heat waves," "severe drought" and "devastating hurricanes" as a result of man-made global warming.

quote:

---

Ad Council Ad: "Tick"

(Camera Cuts to Different Children to say each word with the "ticking" sound of a clock in the background.)
Children: Tick ..Tick...Tick...Tick... Tick... Tick... Tick...Massive Heatwaves...Tick... Tick...Tick... Severe Droughts...Tick...Tick...Tick... Tick...Tick... Tick...Tick... Devastating Hurricanes...Tick...Tick... Tick...Tick...Tick...Tick...Tick...Tick... And the worst...Tick...Tick...Tick... Tick... is yet...Tick...Tick...Tick... to come...Tick.
Announcer : What kind of world are you leaving us?
(FightGlobalWarming.Com appears on a black screen)
Announcer: Learn what you can do, while there's still time.

---

To document these threats the Ad Council provides several peer-reviewed papers from science journals. The IPCC report stated:

IPCC Report: Some extreme events are projected to increase in frequency and/or severity during the 21st century due to changes in the mean and/or variability of climate, so it can be expected that the severity of their impacts will also increase in concert with global warming.

However, the IPCC consensus also noted some degree of uncertainty:

IPCC Report: The potential for large scale and possibly irreversible impacts poses risks that have yet to be reliably quantified.

One dissenter from the consensus view, Roger Pielke Jr., says perceptions regarding hurricanes in particular are skewed by recent major storms, and adds:

Pielke : Claims of linkage between global warming and hurricane impacts are premature . . . (and) any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small in the context of observed variability.

Pielke directs the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and maintains the Prometheus science policy web log.

"There’s still time,” "Our Future is Up to You."

Both television ads follow up with calls to action. The campaign's website has a section where individuals can calculate the amount of carbon dioxide they produce and see tips on "cutting the carbs," such as using energy-efficient lightbulbs and programmable thermostats, planting trees, washing clothes in cold water, driving less aggressively and less often, keeping tires properly inflated and turning off car air conditioners and "cracking the window" instead.

It's not clear what this would accomplish, however, even if a majority of Americans began following such advice. Many scientists say far more drastic reductions in emissions are needed. A Dutch report cited by sponsors says, for example, "Industrialized countries will need to reduce their emissions by 15-30% below 1990 levels in 2020."

Dissenters argue that drastic changes are not worth the effort. Michaels summarizes this point of view in a recent web post:

Michaels : Atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are going to continue to grow until major technological advancements take place—advancements that are, at the very least, decades away. So whether or not the climate changes we are observing now are reversible is a non-issue. There is nothing substantive that can be done about it anyway.

However, the more widely held scientific opinion is that massive change is needed soon. The IPCC summary for policymakers urged nations to adopt a wide "portfolio" of painful and politically controversial actions, including taxes and regulations:

IPCC: The portfolio may include -according to national circumstances-emissions/carbon/energy taxes, tradeable or non-tradeable permits, land-use policies, provision and/or removal of subsides, deposit/refund systems, technology or performance standards, energy mix requirements, product bans, voluntary agreements, government spending and investment, and support for research and development.

--by Justin Bank and Brooks Jackson

Sources

den Elzen, M & M Meinshausen. "Multi-gas emission pathways for meeting the EU 2°C climate target," Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 2005.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Summary for Policy Makers.

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

Michaels, Patrick J. "Non-Linear Climate Change," World Climate Report. 9 Aug 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Observations, Not Models," World Climate Report. 14 April 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Hot Tip: Post Misses Point," World Climate Report. 31 Jan 2006.

National Acadamies of Science. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions," The National Academies Press. 2001.

posted April 06, 2006 06:39 PM            

Neither is it true the best scientists in the world agree global warming is either occurring or is harmful if it is occurring.

Now acoustic, I keep hearing about this unanimity among "leading scientists" that global warming is occurring and that it's harmful to humans, animals and plant life.

So, since there is this unanimity among "leading scientists", where is the list of these "leading scientists" along with their academic and professional credentials.

I don't give a rat's ass what government bureaucrats attempting to enlarge the scope of their authority and budgets think.

I also don't give a rat's ass what scientists who are angling for research money to "research" the issue think.

Further, I really don't give a rat's ass what those connected to the utterly corrupt, bungling and incompetent United Nations think because I know the UN is attempting to breach the sovereignty of nations and gain control of all their energy usage.

So acoustic, I've posted a list of something over 12,500...from a list of about 19,000...well credentialed scientists, including PhD's who actually work in the field of climate and related fields and who say global warming is junk science, that it isn't happening, that the earth is actually in a cooling trend, who say that even if it were happening it would be beneficial to humans, would increase crop production...and be generally beneficial to plant life all over the planet.

Surely acoustic, you can come up a large list of academically well qualified, well credentialed scientists working in the field who support the global warming theory...since there's such unanimity of opinion in scientific circles.

posted April 06, 2006 08:42 PM            

Now if you don't give a rat's-ass about any group yada yada yada, then why should anyone give a rat's-ass about your experts? We can all sit around saying, "I don't give a rat's-ass," til we're blue in the face. What does that accomplish?

Here's a good site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
(One which neither proves nor disproves global warming.)

posted April 06, 2006 10:17 PM            

On the other hand, it's the leftists who are hot on the issue and who insist the evidence is overwhelming and supported by "leading scientists" in the related fields.

Problem is, there is never a list of those "leading scientists" signing onto the theory, while there is a very large list of those highly credentialed and academically qualified to deliver an opinion on the subject who say it's a crock.

I suspect those so called "leading scientists" are actually few in number and that the ranks of those supporting the theory are not so well qualified to deliver an informed opinion as they would like everyone to think.

posted April 07, 2006 01:37 AM            

Can you say unequivocally that there's no reason to keep tabs on the environment?

I never saw your 19000 strong list, but is it the one referenced here:
http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498

quote:

---

What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

---

Sounds like a propaganda piece to me.

posted April 07, 2006 01:42 AM            

I don't give a damn what factcheck.org has to say about global warming or any assessment they might have on the qualifications of scientists to have informed opinions. I'm not much into opinion from uninformed sources...like factcheck.org on global warming.

posted April 07, 2006 03:00 AM            

quote:

---

I'm not much into opinion from uninformed sources

---

Yet, even when confronted with evidence that this whole petition was a ploy, you try to claim that people who were asked to read ONE paper on Global Warming [produced by people with a clear agenda] have a legitimate opinion?

Claims by the site that 2660 have been verified are awfully convenient, and without any evidence of accountability on their part.

Notice as well that there is no linking to other sites for evidence of global warming. Notice that you and I and anybody else reading this right now can go there and sign the petition. How a Mercury in Virgo can't see the clear evidence of fowl play is beyond me.

posted April 07, 2006 09:58 AM            

These scientists are well qualified to have an informed opinion on global warming or the lack thereof. Factcheck.org isn't qualified to deliver an informed opinion on anything.

The fact scientists signed the petition AND did NOT ask for the removal of their names from the list is indication enough that factcheck.org is full of it when they state the petition was a ploy.

The height of irresponsibility is people like you acoustic who have their head where it doesn't belong and believe every word of radical leftist activists who are seeking political power...which is exactly what the Kyoto Treaty was all about....political power delivered into the hands of the corrupt United Nations.

Now acoustic, where's your list of "leading scientists" who support the global warming theory?

If you can't produce the list then any reasonable person would wonder why. In as much as claims are being made there is unanimity among scientists that global warming is a threat to humans, animals and plant life and is being caused by human activity there must be a list somewhere of these scientists who agree with the theory....else, how would anyone know there is unanimity among scientists on the issue.

So, please post the list of "leading scientists" or else admit the global warming stampede is itself a marketing ploy by leftist radical activists to stampede the world into turning power over to the corrupt, bungling, incompetent UN.

Common sense is not a phrase which would be included in any democrat thesaurus. The only sense in the democrat lexicon is nonsense.

posted April 07, 2006 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

The fact scientists signed the petition AND did NOT ask for the removal of their names from the list is indication enough that factcheck.org is full of it when they state the petition was a ploy.

---

Factcheck.org didn't claim that bit was a ploy. Here's the link to debunking your petition: http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498

quote:

---

The height of irresponsibility is people like you acoustic who have their head where it doesn't belong and believe every word of radical leftist activists who are seeking political power...which is exactly what the Kyoto Treaty was all about....political power delivered into the hands of the corrupt United Nations.

---

I don't believe I've ever commented about Kyoto.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, where's your list of "leading scientists" who support the global warming theory?

---

Where's yours? Like I said before, a site with a clear agenda that claims it has a verifiable list of people, and yet doesn't prove that verification isn't too trustworthy in my book.

Philip H. Abelson, PhD is the first on the list of 2,660. He's dead. Died at 91 August 1, 2004.

quote:

---

"His own editorials were clear, rich with content, and sometimes angry," said Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, in a tribute he wrote (Science, 6 August 2004). "He didn't like government regulation much, particularly when it involved regulation of science,"

---

Can't find Gene Ackerman myself. So much for being a leading scientist on anything.

Robert K Adair, PhD is a 80-something self-proclaimed leftist, and not a fan of Bush. (http://www.yard-work.org/?cat=39) He's a physicist. He's got a good amount of scientific opinion out there, but none of it deals with global warming.

John A Adam, PhD is only linked to the topic of global warming through this petition. He's a mathematician.

Daniel B Adams Jr. is only found by Google on the global warming petition. There's no evidence of him being a scientist or an expert on climate change.

Gail D Adams, PhD is another person who is virtually invisible where the internet is concerned with the one exception being this petition.

Leonard C A Adams, PhD same as Gail.

Louis W Adams, PhD same.

Neil Adams, PhD Australian member of Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center who states, "The impact that ACE research will have on Australia’s ability to manage its resources and cope with the ongoing reality of climate change underscores the value that such cooperative research in the public arena can deliver to the Australian taxpayer. It is appropriate that the Australian Government, on behalf of all Australians, should be the major client of such CRCs." http://www.acecrc.com.au/uploaded/117/797268_45acecrcannualreport2003-.pdf (Page 5)

William M Adams, PhD is another invisible man except where this petition is involved.

-----------------------------------------

Are you starting to get the picture? At what point should I start calling you gullible?

Furthermore, if you searched around on that site at all you'd know that ANYONE can sign that petition in anyone's name. There's no telling whether these people even know that they've been included on this list.

Are you really so 'sensible' that you'll believe anything you read that happens to support your point of view?

-----------------------------------------

George Adcock could be the one from Australian National University, but he's not a scientist of the nature of the group he's been put in. He's a human evolutionist. It's possible that this is a common name, however, and I just didn't find one with links to any kind of science.

posted April 07, 2006 03:16 PM            

I don't give a damn if some of those scientists are invisible on the Internet. The world doesn't begin and end with the Internet.

Now acoustic, where's your list of "leading scientists" who claim global warming is harmful to humans, animals and plant life and is caused by human activity?

You keep ducking the question by posting nonsense...which is all you have to post.

One would think every once in a while you'd pull your head out and realize there's a real world out there and it doesn't revolve around the radical leftist agenda. One would also think you would realize your position is hopeless if for no other reason than you can't back up anything you say...except with uninformed opinion from those who lack academic and professional credentials to make an informed opinion.

So acoustic, when do I get to see your list of so called "experts" in climate?

posted April 07, 2006 04:48 PM            

Now, let's get down to it.

quote:

---

but the fact is, those 2600 PhD's do work in climate and related fields and they aren't the only ones on the lists who do.

---

Absolutely false, and I KNOW you can't prove otherwise. If you think you can, go for it.

quote:

---

Further, their professional and academic credentials have been checked.

---

Once again, false. You can't prove it, and until you can this list utterly lacks credibility.

quote:

---

They're not bureaucrats sitting behind the desk in some think tank nor do they sit on their @sses in a government or UN office building with their hands out for more money and power

---

Who are they Jwhop? Don't try to pretend that you know, because you don't.

quote:

---

One would also think you would realize your position is hopeless if for no other reason than you can't back up anything you say...except with uninformed opinion from those who lack academic and professional credentials to make an informed opinion

---

This is absolutely true ...in relation to what YOU ARE posting! MY position is that I'm not certain about global warming, but I believe it's very much worth watching and it's certainly worthy of being sensitive to.

Face it, you've done absolutely nothing to research what you're trying to put forward. You didn't post a verifiable list of scientists with any ties to climate study. You've merely republished a highly suspect random list of people.

posted April 08, 2006 08:11 PM            

T. M. L. Wigley: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu/publications/wigleycv.html

P.D. Jones: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/

S. C. B. Raper: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/raper_scb.htm

In a paper authored by these people for the National Academy of Sciences for the United States of America:

quote:

---

Why has the globe warmed? Because we are confident that human activities have substantially changed the atmospheric composition in terms of greenhouse gases (GHGs; especially carbon dioxide) and aerosols, we are also confident that at least part of the observed warming is human-induced. The leading question is how much? To answer this, we first need to estimate the magnitude of the expected anthropogenic warming. To do this requires a knowledge of the anthropogenic forcing change, and a suitable model to convert this forcing to an estimated climate change.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8314

---

But also:

quote:

---

Because the climate system varies naturally, one might expect at least part of the low-frequency, century time scale change in global-mean temperature to be due to natural factors. Overall, these factors could have produced a cooling or a warming. (Same site and article)

---

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (Grant DE-FG02-86ER60397) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Grant NA96AANAG0347). The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. IPCC temperature data were provided by David Parker, U.K. Meteorological Office.

Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T. also worked on that report, and had this to say about the theory of Global Warming:

quote:

---

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

---

In the National Academy of Sciences report he states:

quote:

---

The observations needed for direct assessment are, indeed, observations that we are currently capable of making, and it is possible that the necessary observations may already be in hand, though the accuracy requirements may be greater than current data provide. Still, the importance of the question suggests that such avenues be adequately explored.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8335

---

David J. Thomson: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/djt/pub.html

quote:

---

From examining the data records I conclude: Changes in solar irradiance explain perhaps one-quarter of the increase in temperature during the last century. The changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration resulting from human consumption of fossil fuels cause most of both the temperature increase and the changes in the seasonal cycle.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8370

---

posted April 09, 2006 04:17 PM            

So, you found a couple of scientists who are on the global warming bandwagon money machine. So what?

Where's the list of all those scientists..along with their academic and professional credentials who say global warming is harmful to humans, animals and plantlife and is caused by human activity?

When you can find such a list, I'll be happy to take a look at it...checking their credentials from plumbers, electricians, streetsweepers, short order cooks, waiters, musicians, actors..bad actors etc.

In the meantime, there is a list of more than 19,000 scientists, 17,000 whose credentials HAVE BEEN CHECKED and verified and who say global warming is bullsh*t.

Explanation

Listed below are 19,200 of the initial signers During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/a_sci.htm

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/b_sci.htm

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/pproject.htm#357

posted April 09, 2006 04:59 PM            

(I shouldn't even have to respond to what you just posted, but in the interest of helping you to understand I'll go ahead one more time. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "has six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally." http://www.oism.org/oism/#Message14 They have a clear political agenda for this petition noted as, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas." http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm There is the petition whom anyone can sign: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm And finally there's the FACT that there is absolutely no oversight, no accountability, and no independent verification that the information on those pages is true and accurate in any way. If you want I'll start another website to mirror their's and I'll populate it with 20,000 names. I'll put up the actual NAS global warming report, and say that these 20,000 people agree with the conclusions of the scientists who agree that humans could be or are contributing to global warming. And then I'll say, "Oh yeah, I checked the names, too. They're totally legit, and they just happen to be experts in climatology or something that could be related to climatology." Would that satisfy your want of a list? )

Bluster and blather isn't what I'VE posted. I've posted verifiable truth. I've posted authors, credentials, and these authors opinions. That's 100% more balanced than your nonsensical list. You can fact check everything I've written here.

All of the experts I'VE quoted wrote for the National Academy of Sciences, which is where our nation's leadership turns to for scientific information.

quote:

---

The National Academy of Sciences was born in the travail of the Civil War. The Act of Incorporation, signed by President Lincoln on March 3, 1863, established service to the nation as its dominant purpose. The act also named 50 charter members.

Over the years, the National Academy of Sciences has broadened its services to the government. During World War I it became apparent that the limited membership -- then numbering only about 150 -- could not keep up with the volume of requests for advice regarding military preparedness. In 1916 the Academy established the National Research Council at the request of President Wilson to recruit specialists from the larger scientific and technological communities to participate in that work.

Recognizing the value of scientific advice to the nation in times of peace as well as war, Wilson issued an executive order at the close of World War I asking the Academy of perpetuate the National Research Council. Subsequent executive orders, by President Eisenhower in 1956 and President Bush in 1993, have affirmed the importance of the National Research Council and further broadened its charter.

Under the authority of its charter, the National Academy of Sciences established the National Academy of Engineering in 1964 and the Institute of Medicine in 1970. Much like the National Academy of Sciences, each of these organizations consists of members elected by peers in recognition of distinguished achievement in their respective fields. The National Academy of Sciences includes about 1,800 members, the National Academy of Engineering about 1,900, and the Institute of Medicine about 1,200. All three organizations also elect foreign associates.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/history.html

---

Now, YOU want to say that the government of the greatest nation in the world employs people whose opinions aren't worth hearing?

posted April 09, 2006 06:20 PM            

If these childish arguments are the best you can do, it would be well for you to stay out of arguments you don't understand.

There is no argument for global warming being caused by increased CO2 levels and every argument for warming causing elevated levels of CO2.

The fact you can't seem to grasp cause and effect is an indication you can't think clearly enough to form your own opinions and must rely on opinions of others...as I've noted before. When they want your opinion acoustic, they'll give it to you.

Now acoustic, if you can't produce that list of leading scientists, then you should call it a day on the global warming issue.

I know you can't produce a list because there isn't one. There would be one if there were sufficient academically and professionally qualified scientists to sign on to the theory but there aren't.

You and your leftist cohorts, including Algore can continue to howl at the moon and made wild statements about the end of the earth but not many people are listening any more.

posted April 09, 2006 07:21 PM            

I've debunked it completely. Only the most foolish of people would say otherwise. Show me where anyone in the real scientific community buys your list. We both know that you can't, so I don't see why you'd recklessly hold on to that argument.

Childish arguments are what Mr. McClellan has been left to spout on the administration's behalf. You're only making yourself look worse by trying to refute what I've said.

Don't even try to act like you know anything about climate change, because if you did you wouldn't be posting bogus lists of made-up 'scientists' as a basis for not believing in global warming. You think you know better than the NAS? I don't see your name on any of their reports.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, if you disagree, you can simply show me the list of leading scientists who say global warming is caused by human activity and elevated levels of CO2 are harmful to humans, animals and plant life.

---

I'm agreeing with the people who actually study this stuff. You are not. I have nothing to prove other than the fact that YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. Case closed. You lose. You lost from the get-go with that ridiculous list. Shame on you for being so gullible.

posted April 09, 2006 11:01 PM            

The junk science and computer models the left falsified to stampede the world into turning all energy usage over to the UN failed and it failed because their computer models were cooked and then found out, junk science. They also attempted to conform science to a political end and they got caught again.

In the real world those models didn't work. I won't bore you with the details acoustic because I doubt you're intellectually capable of understanding and wouldn't care if you were.

In order for a new treaty to be accepted by the US 60 votes in the Senate would be needed and that's not going to happen. Any treaty turning US sovereignty over to the UN or any other outside body would be filibustered and killed. Further Senators voting to do so would most likely be lynched.

So acoustic, it's over, it's a dead issue to all intents and purposes.

Another thing acoustic, the nations which did sign are not meeting their CO2 reduction quotas...some have actually increased their CO2 outputs since signing the Kyoto disaster.

It isn't I who have lost acoustic, it's the leftist morons who attempted to ram global warming down America's throat who have lost.

The National Council and World Council of Churches who are pushing for a global warming pact have also lost and are losing members and member churches in droves which is fine with me because they are nothing more than radical leftist activists hiding behind a religious facade.

Enjoy your delusions, it's all you have left.

posted April 10, 2006 12:38 AM            

quote:

---

The junk science and computer models the left falsified to stampede the world into turning all energy usage over to the UN failed and it failed because their computer models were cooked and then found out, junk science. They also attempted to conform science to a political end and they got caught again.

---

I haven't seen that.

I would like to know what you think the political end is, though. Is it to be conscious of the environment? Heaven forbid! Is it to reduce our reliance of foreign oil (a stance recently taken up by this Republican administration)?

Let's compare that political end with the opposite. Are you saying that you want the environment to be left to the general public, and big business to do with what they please? Are you saying that regardless of pollution or poor living conditions we shouldn't concern ourselves with monitoring the environment, or stepping in to regulate it when things get out of hand? How responsible is that position you are taking?

quote:

---

In the real world those models didn't work. I won't bore you with the details acoustic because I doubt you're intellectually capable of understanding and wouldn't care if you were.

---

That's a very broad statement, and I'm certain it's untrue with regard to certain sciences.

You don't have to bore me with specifics, because you couldn't possibly relay them properly having no expertise in climate change yourself. You may think a lot of your intellect, but I see it fail miserably on a regular basis, so spare me.

I'll refer you Richard Lindzen of MIT for a reasonable take on the science involved. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8335

quote:

---

In order for a new treaty to be accepted by the US 60 votes in the Senate would be needed and that's not going to happen. Any treaty turning US sovereignty over to the UN or any other outside body would be filibustered and killed. Further Senators voting to do so would most likely be lynched.

---

Boring and useless dramatics are of no interest. Once again the argument isn't about the Senate or the UN. The argument is firstly about your bogus list, and secondly about what REAL experts have to say about climate change.

quote:

---

Another thing acoustic, the nations which did sign are not meeting their CO2 reduction quotas...some have actually increased their CO2 outputs since signing the Kyoto disaster.

---

Once again, this was never at issue.

quote:

---

It isn't I who have lost acoustic, it's the leftist morons who attempted to ram global warming down America's throat who have lost.

---

posted April 10, 2006 12:09 AM            

quote:

---

The National Council and World Council of Churches who are pushing for a global warming pact have also lost and are losing members and member churches in droves which is fine with me because they are nothing more than radical leftist activists hiding behind a religious facade.

---

You went back to add this? More off-topic nonsense? You're really grasping at straws.

quote:

---

Only an idiot would call a list of 19,000 scientific specialists, 2600 of whom are PhD's in climate and related fields, a fake list.

---

No. Only an idiot would call a list of unverified people compiled by an organization with no oversight, no credibility, and no ties to the scientific community a genuine list of scientific specialists. We've already been through this.

Have you even tried to make this list credible? Have you looked at/for The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's affiliations? Enough said as far as I'm concerned. You should really look into these things before blindly accepting them.

--------------------------------------------

Listen, this is simple stuff. There are two sides:

1.

You can be on the side of monitoring and studying the environment for change. You can concern yourself with the possible impact of human activity on the environment. You can agree that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You can side with those who wish the best for future generations.

or

2.

You can disregard indicators the current climatologists are studying. You can keep the government from regulating polluters. You can side with smog. You can ignore anything that might adversely affect our environment. You can promote businesses who may put profit over environmental/living condition concerns.

posted April 10, 2006 02:09 PM            

The entire list of 19,000+ scientists had a chance to see the documentation provided with the petition. That's right acoustic, they weren't just lining up to sign something they didn't know anything about.

Further acoustic, it's the loony left pseudo scientists who don't want their work reviewed and even attempted to withhold their studies and methodologies.

The entire nature of scientific study acoustic is to produce study results which can withstand review by other scientists. In other words acoustic, those same results can be reproduced by other scientists. In the case of the loony leftists, their studies and conclusions broke down under review. Mainly because their computer models were fried, cooked, jiggered and manipulated.

But the real test is in the observations of real world climate. There, the computer models DID NOT track with observable temperatures.

So acoustic, you can continue your childish tirade but it will do you no good.

You continue to evade my question acoustic.

Now, WHERE IS THAT LIST? How about producing that list here or admitting there is no list of "leading scientists" who say global warming is caused by human activity and elevated levels of CO2 are harmful to humans, animals and plant life?

Oh yeah, the "church" thing. I guess the title of this thread and the opening article on this thread escaped your notice.
Prophecies of the Religious Left