posted May 20, 2008 10:30 AM            

More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office for comment, but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "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. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher."

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result."

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there actually are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of PhD scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations' campaign to vilify hydrocarbons, officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 PhDs, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors, and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

posted May 20, 2008 10:45 AM            

So whats the consensus now?

posted May 20, 2008 11:47 AM            

Methane is 30 times more efficient as a green house gas than CO2.

CO2 is actually beneficial/essential to plant life which replenishes our oxygen supply.

The consensus is that humans should stop eating diets high is carbohydrates...like beans.

May 19, 2008
Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?'
Marc Sheppard

The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.

On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question:

"How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"

How many, indeed?

Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

How might anyone of clear mind consider these words from these numbers and still accept claims of scientific consensus? Or calls for any -- let alone immediate -- action?

Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science."

But will their sheer numbers nullify the "settled science" argument?

Not if the alarmists have any say it won't. Solomon offers a brief history of attempts to bury all such previous accords. First by mocking the limited number of signatures on earlier appeals, and then -- when the original Oregon petition boasted 17,800 signatories -- claiming duplicate or fraudulent names. And even when all names were ultimately verified as authentic (save one actually planted by agents of Greenpeace), the MSM still ignored their consequence.

Sixteen years ago, the Rio event attracted over 7,000 journalists who dutifully spread the word of man's inhumanity to his habitat to an appreciative world. Will today's official announcement of 32,000 men and women of science who, by their physical signature, reject mankind's guilt capture any media attention at all?

Or, for that matter, that of climate experts Gore, Boxer, Lieberman, Warner, Clinton, Obama, or, most despicably -- McCain?

As the science no longer appears to concern any of them -- don't hold your CO2 polluted breath.

Yet their denials change nothing - the wheels continue to fall off the warmist dungwagon.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html

posted May 20, 2008 11:55 AM            

Every group of scientists are unhappy in its own way when describing the earth- LOL

posted May 20, 2008 01:23 PM            

Further, Mars lacks tectonic plate activity and almost all the CO2 on Mars is permanently locked up in rock formations which means there was probably little or no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere..except for water vapor, if indeed there is sufficient water on Mars to produce water vapor. Another problem is the temperature on Mars which is not now and probably never was high enough to produce the evaporation from surface water necessary to produce significient water vapor in the atmosphere.

Now Mannu, I never said anything about devolution of earth's atmosphere and neither have scientists aligned behind the science which says man made global warming is a crock of crap.

Since you introduced Mars into this discussion, perhaps you would care to explain why Mars is undergoing a warming trend...as are other planets in the solar system.

Perhaps you can tip off earth scientists to where the Martians are hiding their SUVs and heavy industrial smoke stacks which spew CO2 into the Mars atmosphere.

After all Mannu, that is the theory upon which the crackpot global warming nuts base their idiotic theory; that burning fossil fuels, carbon based fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere and is causing global warming.

posted May 20, 2008 04:27 PM            

Care to show that to me?

In the meantime, something almost every 10 year old knows is that in magnetic force fields "opposites attract" and "like repels". As almost every 10 year old knows, you can't put the North Poles of magnets together nor can the South Poles be put together because they repel each other.

Just the opposite is true when a North Pole and a South Pole magnet are put together because they do attract each other.

There are the self loathing who want to believe man is destroying the earth and the "man made global warming" hoax is tailor made to push their hot buttons.

However, to cut through all the bullshiiit coming off the "man made global warming" hysterics, I cite the science which drives a stake through the heart of their argument. One among many but in this one, there is no extrapolation, no guesswork and no computer models necessary to prove rising CO2 levels DO NOT cause warming..temperature rises.

Ice core samples were taken and sectioned. These ice core samples cover a period in earths history going back 650,000 years. It was discovered that rising temperatures cause rises in atmospheric CO2 with a lag time averaging 800 years. In other words, rising temperatures lead rising CO2 levels and not the other way round.

That's the stake straight through the heart of the nutty theory that man made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming.

I make you the same offer I made Mannu.

posted May 20, 2008 05:17 PM            

Anyone ever notice that the brain dead never attack the science used to refute the nutty theory of man made global warming?

Now Blue, I'll extend to you the same offer I made to Mannu and Dew.

posted May 21, 2008 06:30 AM              

In fact not only do I agree with Jwhop here but I'll go further to say we are more likely to be entering an Ice Age of sorts!

Let us not forget those 333 articles I personally posted in this thread here showing yet once again that "Global Warming" is non existent in the sense in which it is being touted, misrepresented, and worshipped.

We are seriously wasting our resources on even discussing this scam, let alone spending trillions of dollars on trying to repair something that isn't broke, LOL!

Hey did you all read this?
Global Warming as Religion and not Science

Go on, entertain yourselves...
Perhaps some "deprogramming" is in order here?

posted May 21, 2008 12:43 PM            

That doesn't mean everyone should move to the equator just yet but one day..in retrospect scientists will pinpoint the end of the warming cycle.

We've had numerous climate change..global warming threads on this forum and hard scientific evidence to the contrary is always rejected by those who "feel".

When the ice age comes, these people..if they're still alive will be out chasing bears, deer and wolves for their pelts to make warm clothing but still convinced..."It's Global Warming".

I noticed all the links you posted and I've read most of it before. They all point to the fact "man made global warming" is a crock.

This is a link to a local talk show host in the Tampa Bay area who has compiled an impressive list of links to global warming information.
http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html

Mannu, I don't blame you refusing to get into your explanation...now.

Does that mean you're going to take a pass on the question I challenged you with?

Tell me why other planets in our solar system are also experiencing a warming trend...within the framework of the man made global warming theory.

posted May 21, 2008 05:30 PM            

Sorry , I haven't watched any of the links yet. Too caught up at work. All the planets beyond earth will eventually cool down. Just because there are hot activities on some region of Jupiter does not indicate that the planet itself is getting warmer.

Even earth has cooled substantially since the volcanic ages. I did post a link where scientists do agree that the earth is now 1deg warmer. Isn't that odd then and there itself? Why must a planet meant to cool suddenly show a rise of 1deg. A theory says its attributed to sun weather.

What is funny is that these scientists have no doubts to believe that methane and other greenhouses increases the temparature of a planet generally.
Now does that mean too much methane(a greenhouse gas) is good or bad for earth , thats what is the hottest question facing mankind today.

So its either humans or the sun to be blamed for rising temparature of earth.

Heh, I heard about terrible drought going on in Florida. And lakes after lakes are still dissapearing all across the earth. Latest I hear, is that LA is planning to recycle sewage water as drinking water for its population.

What is your advise if any Jwhop to save Florida?

What is your advice to save the earth YFIS? Don't suggest everyone must fart atleast 42 times a day LOL. That should warm the planet enough and prevent an ice age

posted May 23, 2008 07:51 PM            

Marine researchers knew that ocean acidification, as it's called, was occurring in deep water far from land. What they called "truly astonishing" was the appearance of this damaging phenomenon on the Pacific North American continental shelf, stretching from Mexico to Canada.

"This means that ocean acidification may be seriously impacting our marine life on our continental shelf right now, today," said Richard Feely of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, part of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Other continental shelf regions around the world are likely to face the same fate, he said.

Plenty of natural activities, including human breath, send the CO2 into the atmosphere, but for the last 200 years or so, industrial processes that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum have pushed emissions higher.

Oceans have long been repositories for the carbon dioxide, absorbing some 525 billion tonnes of the climate-warming substance over the last two centuries - about one-third of all human-generated CO2 for that period.

But the daily absorption of 22 million tonnes of the stuff has changed the chemistry and biology of the oceans, turning it corrosive and making it difficult or impossible for some animals to produce their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons, the researchers said.

posted May 26, 2008 12:56 PM            

No one is talking about a localized hot spot on Jupiter when they're talking about a general warming of the atmospheres of ALL the planets in our solar system...including Pluto.

Now, you've posted a report on ocean acidity to bolster your argument for man made global warming.

What you and madcap scientists wish to do is charge humans as the cause of general warming of earth's atmosphere but it won't wash. The man made contribution to the carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is about .03%. That's about 3/100th of 1 percent of the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Overlooked is the fact of increased solar radiation which warms the oceans and seas. The simple fact is that the oceans and seas are the main reservoirs of carbon dioxide on earth which hold CO2 in cold cycles and release CO2 into the atmosphere in warm cycles. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes rising levels of CO2 in earth's atmosphere...with a lag time of about 800 years on average. Ice core samples going back about 650,000 years show this relationship between rising temperatures and rising levels of CO2..with rising temperatures leading rising CO2 levels. The cause and effect are clearly shown and established.

The article you posted showing rising levels of acidity in earth's oceans and seas is an example of piggish scientists attempting to line up at the public trough for money. The current fad is CO2.

These scientists conveniently overlook the main cause of rising levels of oceanic acidity. That would be the production of sulfur dioxide, SO2 and oxides of nitrogen, NOX released from tailpipes of cars and smokestacks of coal burning and oil burning
electric generating plants.

We call what precipitates out of the atmosphere from these 2 compounds "Acid Rain". The earth's surface is 3/4 water. It's an inconvenient fact that these compounds, SO2 and NOX precipitate out of the atmosphere over these same oceans and seas in rain and the runoff from rivers and streams end their trek by dumping into those same oceans and seas.

Another fact which is inconvenient to these so called scientists is that emission controls on US cars have been in effect since the 1970's and scrubbers in smokestacks to remove SO2 and NOX have been mandatory for about 20 years.

Another inconvenient fact is that there are more than 5,000 active volcanos under earth's oceans and seas; every one of which spews sulfur compounds, nitrogen compounds and CO2 into the waters. Notice, I said active underwater volcanos.

Perhaps your story should be carried to the communist Chinese government which is building 2300 NEW coal fired electric generating plants and to the government of India which is rapidly expanding their energy consumption/production capacities.

posted May 26, 2008 02:20 PM            

Jwhop its because Americans are outsourcing everything to china and india and other nations from the furnitures in their homes, computer parts, etc including their underwears and banians

I knew you will say that its not Americas problems. America wants to suck up resources of the world.

Do you remember the "dust storm" during the great depression of 1929? Perhaps you were not born then - google for that. It was mostly American farmers fault then Jwhop. They would not rotate crops and sevearal other reasons. I believe in cause-effect chain. The results always comes backs full circle. We cannot bury our head in the sands. The chickens must come back to the roost - LOL

Did you hear Warren Buffet say this recession will last longer? Hope its not followed by a weather catastrophe like during GD1.

posted May 26, 2008 02:44 PM            

My advice would be to speak directly to the issues I raised against what you posted...instead of attempting pot shots which are of no consequence.

You could attempt to refute what I said...if only you could refute it...but since you can't do that, we get the indirect off point argument from you.

posted May 26, 2008 03:24 PM            

Strange, I don't recall putting you on the clock and limiting the time you have for a factual response.

I haven't seen any evidence that fishies are dying of anything but being eaten or dying of old age.

In the meantime let's not be pointing fingers at any causative agent which isn't the main culprit and those would be SO2 and NOX in acidifying the oceans and seas, not CO2.

posted May 27, 2008 09:14 AM            

The more scary term is 'climate change' and this is what we should all be paying attention to.

posted May 27, 2008 09:39 AM            

it`s 28 damn degrees here this fine May morn

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted May 27, 2008 12:02 PM            

Well wheels, I've made a copy of your comment and mounted it in my scrapbook...under "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

I'm still using "Global Warming" for it's embarrassment value to the nuts who postulated the theory...and because they haven't changed their wild predictions in the face of facts. They've merely changed what they choose to call their theory and continued on in blissful ignorance.

28* Juni