Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Scientists Who Deny Global Warming In Majority! (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 11 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Scientists Who Deny Global Warming In Majority!
AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 12:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Discredited? Haha! Many are former members of your holy source! How can you discredit so many scientists who are specialists in their fields? I would like to see that. Why are you avoiding the questions they raise? AG, where is your evidence? Are you saying that you asked for me to produce scientists while knowing that over 30,000 scientists exist? Wow. That's a bit deceptive of you. I guess all of that CO2 floated up to Mars, huh? The evidence clearly points to the sun, and we will have a steep decline in temperatures in a couple more decades. Nothing about your posts have been "good," AG. You lied about there not being scientists who deny global warming (when you just admitted that you knew about them). Get your head out of the sand.

Ok, you actually took a moment to comment yourself. Let me respond.

quote:
Discredited? Haha!

Yup. Discredited. IF you did a search on that list, you'd find it discredited.

quote:
Many are former members of your holy source!

Are they? Can you prove that?

quote:
How can you discredit so many scientists who are specialists in their fields?

I neither know them to be specialists in their field, nor the field of climatology. Do you?

quote:
Why are you avoiding the questions they raise?

What questions are those specifically? Are we still talking about the 30,000 list, or are we back on the first post?

quote:
Are you saying that you asked for me to produce scientists while knowing that over 30,000 scientists exist?

A list of names exists. We haven't certified their scientific credentials. We don't have their peer reviewed papers on climate science, and this is because such papers do not exist. Yes, I was aware of this bogus list. They neither constitute science, nor expertise in climate.

quote:
That's a bit deceptive of you.

Not deceptive in the slightest. Point to the people in that list that work for NASA, the NAS, NOAA, etc. Where are they? You bring them as evidence of having scientists on your side, but you haven't proven their expertise, have you? I'm supposed to just take a list of names from a non-scientific, non-academic source, and believe them on their word that they're scientists? If anyone is deceptive in this scenario, it's you for promoting their trustworthiness without having any evidence of such.

quote:
The evidence clearly points to the sun, and we will have a steep decline in temperatures in a couple more decades.

No, it doesn't. I've covered this before, so when we get to this, I'll cover it again. Sorry bud.

quote:
Nothing about your posts have been "good," AG.

That's a matter of opinion. The opinion of a person that lacks the rationality he claims to have.

quote:
You lied about there not being scientists who deny global warming (when you just admitted that you knew about them).

I know I shouldn't repond to this line after already having addressed this, but really, this is funny. I didn't lie about anything. I asked you to produce the science, right? Right. You produced a list. A list is not science.

My head's not in the sand. Yours is. If, instead of attempting a poor argument style, you opted for a more rational, scientific tactic, you'd see that I'm going to come out on top. The science isn't on your side.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 12:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You keep 'em coming, AG. I want to see you show me some evidence to refute what the scientists are saying about global temps and sun activity and also why we have reached 2/3 of CO2 catastrophic levels, yet no marked increase in temps. Plus, there's plenty of others. Get to work! You have quite a few more to refute (or try to). Haha! Global Warming Alarmists will go to any length to preserve their financial stake, especially when attempting to discredit one of their own who defected. Your claims (more lies, since you clearly knew better) that vitually all scientists are on the global warming money train with no dissent just shows your own lack of credibility and misunderstanding of science.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Haha! Your double-talk doesn't work here, AG. It's the CO2 hypothesis that isn't supported by the science. If it were, it would truly be super hot by now. The CO2 hypothesis doesn't fit the data. You should do more reading; you appear desperate when you avoid the issues. If you want to impress someone, go back and answer them with science. Prove that global temps do not mirror sun activity. This is fun! Weeeee! Glad to see you on board, Juni.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 4211
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
am I still here
** thanks Randall**
------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

- George Eliot

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Kirk Myers article is a good place to begin with, AG. Start refuting! Show me your brand of science (if you can). Haha! Then we can continue with your absurdly outdated claims that are backed by money-grubbing alarmists who are no longer credible scientists, because they have sold their souls by betraying the scientific method. They should be ashamed of themselves.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bogus list? Now you are really grasping at straws. You need to read some of the other postings about the meetings of scientists and what was discussed and who attended. You're getting rather pathetic now, dude.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So we're starting over then? I thought you wanted me to sift through this mountain of bullsh!t you've posted. If you would rather me tackle CO2, you should have started there. That would be LOGICAL. Do I need to take over the terms of this debate? It should be simpler than posting loads of nonsense when the questions are few.

You haven't proven that the CO2 hypothesis isn't supported by the science. The CO2 hypothesis IS the prevailing science.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Stop answering my personal comments and avoiding the real issues. I want to see you answer the experts in the posted articles and see what you think your science says to refute them. Good luck! Ah, junk science...gotta love it.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Bogus list? Now you are really grasping at straws. You need to read some of the other postings about the meetings of scientists and what was discussed and who attended. You're getting rather pathetic now, dude.

Notice. You keep making claims you are not proving. That's the only pathetic thing in this thread.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your personal comments continue to be personal, Randall. Stop trying to defame me by posting claims you haven't supported, and maybe we can start the debate.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, I'm giving you an out. Start with CO2 if you want. The numbers don't jibe. It's junk science at its best. And this isn't a debate. I'm just posting info here for those who are ready to open their eyes and see the truth. You can take it however you like. But I don't see you refuting anything, because you can't. All you can do is quote sources that are financially vested in lying and deceiving and covering up the real science and the fact that their models have failed miserably. You actually fit along well with them. Maybe you should go ask them for a job.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oohhh, I can hardly wait for Jwhop to appear here.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5375
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hahaha

I've already given the delusional one a list of 31,000 American scientists....9,000 of whom are Ph.Ds...who say man made global warming is a crock and signed a petition to the United States government to warn them off the crackpot theory of man made global warming.


http://www.petitionproject.org/

List of Signers By Name http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

You have to be pretty damned dense or a religious fanatic wedded to the crackpot non-scientific religion of man made global warming to continue to believe against all evidence to the contrary.

The delusional one has been asked numerous times for a list of scientists who have or are willing to sign a petition or be included on a list of those who agree with the crackpot theory of man made global warming.

So far, the delusional one hasn't been able to produce such a list of scientists.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AG, either you are not reading the professional opinions of the information posted, or you are not comprehending it. I am no longer going to address you on this string until you specifically address the science I posted. I even posted a study that showed the peer-reviewed journal articles outnumber the alarmists' articles. As I stated, this string is not for me to debate. Jwhop may do so if he wishes. But my goal is merely to inform and to show the grossly under-represented other side, because people tend to think man-made global warming is the accepted norm, when, in fact, there is much scientific dissension.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks, Jwhop! I hadn't seen that before. Yeah, the alarmists are like followers of a cult at this point.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 4211
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To lighten the mood...

I saw a cartoon somewhere that went something like this:

Jake, I forgive ALL those who believe in global warming.

Kate, hmmm,really??

Jake, yep, all nine of them

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

- George Eliot

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If the global warming chicken littles were true scientists, they would take the opposing thoughts from their peers (like the sun) and research it (or at least try to refute it). But there is no money in declaring warming and cooling trends are outside of our hands.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 01:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OMG, that was hilarious, Juni!

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5375
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 02:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're welcome Randall.

Here's a breakdown of the scientific specialties of those 31,000 American scientists who signed the..."man made global warming is a crock" petition.

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)


2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)


3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)


Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)


Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)


2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)


2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)


3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)


Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)


2. General Science (269)


Very funny Juni

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow! Quite an impressive list. But I'm sure someone here will just say that list is bogus, Jwhop. It's one thing to believe a certain way (we all have our beliefs), but it's another thing to claim that those beliefs are supported by science. To think that we can control the weather when we can only marginally even predict it beyond the short-term is the sheer definition of insanity. It's an extraordinary claim, to say the least, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And for alarmists to continue to deny that there is no scientific dissension among their peers to man-made global warming is beyond close-mindedness...it's outright fraud.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6296
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 03:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I already did with good reason. Have you provided a single scientific paper from this list? Yeah, I didn't think so. A rational person would question their own sources, right? They'd vet them in some way, right?

quote:
To think that we can control the weather when we can only marginally even predict it beyond the short-term is the sheer definition of insanity.

This is the thing. I have to address both your crazy statements as well as the science. You say "weather". Climate includes weather, yes, but it's beyond simple weather. I've made this point several times in the past when localized weather was thought to be equal to the global climate.

CO2
NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

NASA's graph on this page shows CO2 rising from 378 parts per million in 2005, and growing to 391 parts per million in 2011.

Where did they get their info? Data from the ice cores.

    Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

    ...

    Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

    Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

    Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere. (I only include methane, because we know more of it was released into the atmosphere as a result of the global-warming-caused hottest summer on record in Russia. It melted some of the permafrost releasing methane into the atmosphere.)

    ...

    The role of human activity

    In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

    The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

    They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

That's NASA. That's the most prominent research facility given thus far in this thread. They don't say anywhere that the increase in CO2 ought to have given more rise in the temperature, and they do leave the 10% possibility that the scientists behind the IPCC report could be wrong.

This is just one stellar scientific reference. There will be more. I just don't have any more time at present.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 05:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In science, 10 percent is a huge margin. It already stated that in my article, as well as giving an example of when science was wrong by such a margin. Duh! No one is disputing a rise in CO2 levels. From here on out, feel free to post your side all you want, but my intention on this string is to simply provide an alternative viewpoint (so people can make their own decision and/or look for more info), not to argue with you. My professor is giving me some journal articles that I will post here, but not really for your benefit, AG.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 06:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
850 PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS DISPUTE GLOBAL WARMING

Alarmists are always stating that "there are no scientific peer-reviewed papers that dispute the theory of catastrophic global warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions." Here is the answer:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 06:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Update: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 - Released: December 11, 2008 -

Link to Updated 2008 Full 231 Page PDF Report

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

UPDATE: Former Vice President Al Gore responds to Senate report within hours of release. (LINK)
UPDATE: 2/22/08: Senate report impacting climate debate. Sampling of international coverage of report: UK Telegraph; Boston Herald; Canada’s National Post; New York Times; Fox News; CNNMoney.com; Human Events; Croatia’s Javno; The Cincinnati Enquirer; WorldNetDaily.com; United Press International (UPI); Spero News; New Zealand Herald; CNSNews.com; Real Clear Politics; PA’s Morning Call; Investor's Business Daily; Philippine’s Manila Standard; Colorado Springs Gazette; Canada Free Press; Belfast Telegraph; Newsmax.com; CA’s Orange County Register; Nashua Telegraph; Yahoo News; & Australia’s Herald Sun;
UPDATE: IMPACT: Scientist ponders reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists (LINK)
INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ]


This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:


Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)


CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)


On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)

# #

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:


Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

# # #

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )


With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 19982
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 24, 2011 06:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here is the link of the story above if anyone wants to click on the article links to the peer-reviewed journal articles that are listed:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged


This topic is 11 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2012

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a