Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Scientists Who Deny Global Warming In Majority! (Page 7)

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!
Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 06:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I like how the above posting starts with Gore's bold-faced lie from "An Inconvenient Truth" that there are no peer-reviewed journal articles that don't support global warming...and then proceeds to list them. Oh, and the polar bears have a section also.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

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

posted July 28, 2011 06:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Haven't you heard Randall?

Sources are only credible if...acoustic says they're credible. Otherwise, those who use them are...delusional.

Yeah, I saw those other cites from NASA. There's split opinion inside NASA and some other scientific centers about global warming, but...as that great scientist, Algore would say..."Man made global warming is settled science..there's a consensus"!

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 06:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I will spare everyone from reading a huge list by just posting this link to 900 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Articles skeptical of manmade climate change:
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 July 28, 2011 06:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thursday, July 28 2011 HomeRSSSitemap"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein

HomeTemperate FactsCO2 and GW InfoGlobal Warming HoaxClimate Change ScienceClimate Science PrimerThe Skeptics HandbookGlobal Warming 101Global Warming Q&ACC and its CausesWhy I'm a GW skepticGW for DummiesPeer-Reviewed StudiesMedieval Warm PeriodCO2 is not pollutionSurface Temp RecordsPrecautionary PrincipleGreenhouse FAQsIs global warming real?Is greenhouse effect real?Today's warming trendGreenhouse Effect CauseHow hot really?Swimming in CO2?CO2, Plants, & IndustryScientists urge caution?Measuring temperatureVariations in temperatureTake the GW test!CO2 Cheat SheetMadness of King GoreGore's 35 unTruthsDeconstructing the TruthSkeptic's Guide to AITInside Real ClimateReal Climate Exposed!Truth about Real ClimateBehind the IPCC1000 Scientists DissentNIPCC ReportIPCC gets failing gradeIPCC CriticismWe've Been ConnedClimategate: Caught!Climategate Inquiries 1Climategate Inquiries 2GW's Amazing StoryLinksOther blogsVideosAbout UsLearn about CCDContact


Donate Today!
If you find this site useful and informative, please consider making a small contribution.


Learn more about the book.
ALSO AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK!


Get a daily email of the day's headlines:
Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner


Recent Posts
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up: July 28, 2011
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Arctic scientist under investigation
Evidence from Top Climatologist Backs Greenhouse Effect Critics
Virgin Enterprise quits Britain
New Scientific Breakthroughs Offer Relief to Windfarm Victims
It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800
2011 Temperature Watch
The great climate debate
Junk Greenhouse Gas Theory Numbers Turned Earth into a Star
Greenwash for sale
Global Warming Panel to Earth's Rescue, on the UN's Dime?
Scientific Casualties Of The IPCC Hockey Stick Fiasco
It's Just a Heat Wave


Recent Comments
If you note, I purposely left out 'car' when I referenced tires. A study has sho... More...
Some dames just aint broad minded. More...
When my brother worked at the Pentagon, this video caused a real stir. The Air F... More... www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zIFG2wxp9I&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watc... More...
Pretty sure ill not consider arming it untill they are well past their terrible ... More...
Is that a tiny "Fat Man" nuke laying in front of the wing? He almost stepp... More...



Home Behind the Science Peer Reviewed Studies and/or Major Scientific Journal Articles Disputing Man-made Causes for Global
Peer Reviewed Studies and/or Major Scientific Journal Articles Disputing Man-made Causes for Global
Written by Global Warming Hoax | September 02 2008


We don't dispute that there may have been some global warming since the turn of the century. Even though it is quite likely some of the measurements were distorted and there is still some dispute over whether we've really warmed at all (see ”If The Globe Is Warming Why Are The Oceans Not?” and ”The Earth may have actually COOLED in the past 60 years!”. But we'll assume for a minute that the earth really has warmed 0.7°C in the past 100 years. That is certainly within the realm of natural variability. Below are links to peer reviewed and/or major scientific journal articles backing the case for a natural cause for global warming. Man has always blamed other men (and women) for bad weather. Medieval peasants burned people at the stake believing that they were witches causing the bad weather. Lets not be so ignorant this time around. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, this is just one of them (one of the milder one's I might add).

So why haven't you heard of these studies? Perhaps the following could answer that question:

“I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” - Ellen Goodman, national syndicated columnist
“David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime.” - Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
The IPCC's chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, recently compared eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's?" Pachauri told a Danish newspaper. "If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing. - National Review
Solar Cycles causing global warming:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: “During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.”

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Abstract: “Paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries”

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: “We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.”

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Abstract: “Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate.”

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Abstract: “The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.

We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.”

Climate Models

Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Abstract: Climate models are now being used extensively to diagnose the causative, especially anthropogenic, factors of observed climatic changes of the past few decades (Palmer, 2001; Stott ., 2001; Thorne ., 2002). These models are also used to make long-term climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Houghton ., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, et al S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations concerning future energy use and various ‘climate protection’ measures in order to prevent ‘dangerous climate impacts’ (e.g., Schneider, S.H., 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world. (This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant AF 49620-02-1-0194 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration grant NAG5-7635.)

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
Albert Arking - Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Abstract: Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations. A 1-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium model is used to show the effects of such bias on the global energy balance and on the global response to a doubling of CO2. We find the main impact is in the energy exchange terms between the surface and atmosphere and in the convective transport in the lower troposphere, where it exceeds 10 W m-2. The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.

Anthropogenic:

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: “A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the “fast-response” framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.”

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
Abstract: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”

The Continuing Search for an Anthropogenic Climate Change Signal: Limitations of Correlation-Based Approaches
Abstract: “Several recent studies claim to have found evidence of large-scale climate changes that were attributed to human influences. These assertions are based on increases in correlation over time between general circulation model prognostications and observations as derived from a centred pattern correlation statistic. We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records.”

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Quote:
Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/behind-the-science/2143-peer-reviewed-studies-andor-major-scientific-journal-articles-disputing-man-made-causes-for-global-

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 07:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What about credentials? The 400 scientists in the above Senate Report come from NASA, the NOAA (OMG--shock, shock!), and others like:

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.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 07:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Peer-reviewed literature casts doubt on man-made global warming
posted on October 13, 2007 at 8:15 am

While preparing a lit review for a recent paper, I ran across this article that makes clear at least some scientists still doubt the man-made link to global warming. Published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal “Renewable Energy,” the author could find no evidence that man-made pollution has led to the global temperature changes. Here’s part of the abstract (italic added for emphasis):


Mathematical expressions which represent possible human influence on global temperature variations are developed, analysed and discussed … This establishment implies that, contrary to previous expectations and opinions, anthropogenic [human-caused] activities hardly generate significant net alterations in global temperature or solar energy patterns. … This is apparently the first scientific finding in the open literature which tends to support the consistent disputing of the human element in climate change by the USA and Australia as well as the views of the “climate skeptics” which heavily supported the September 2003 World Climate Change Conference held in Moscow.

The author is Ernest C. Njau, chair of the physics department at the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. Njau elaborates in the full-text of the article:


One of the implications of the contents of this paper is that anthropogenic [man-made] activities are not the dominant force behind the post-1800 global warming trend. Atmospheric CO2 [carbon dioxide] is the primary greenhouse gas that is believed to have contributed to global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The use of fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2. In line with the implications of this paper, Ryabchikov shows that the main source of supply of CO2 to the atmosphere is not anthropogenic activities, but tropical regions of the ocean. These regions supply 2×1010 tons of air-borne CO2 annually to the temperate and circumpolar latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

I don’t claim to understand the science behind this author’s conclusions. But, I can read an academic article, and I know that at least three other scientists had to review and approve of its methods before publication. I also know that the Earth has warmed many times in the past, so there’s little face validity in assuming that its latest warming cycle must be due to human activity.

Njau’s article does not represent the first time that the man-made link to global warming has been questioned in the academic press. In 2005, in the peer-reviewed journal “Pure and Applied Geophysics,” three authors concluded that the current scientific literature did not support the theory that man-made pollution was causing global warming. From their abstract:


Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.

Given this literature, I feel comfortable saying that I still hold some skepticism regarding global warming.

Furthermore, future research may want to examine whether the reason so many scientists appear eager to assume that man is behind global warming has more to do with ideology than scientific method.
http://mattjduffy.com/2007/10/peer-reviewed-literature-casts-doubt-on-man-made-g lobal-warming/

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 07:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
WORLD'S LARGEST SCIENCE GROUP REJECTING MAN-MADE CLIMATE FEARS

By Marc Morano
July 31, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."

"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it's time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research?that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."


Advertisement

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—off nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method?characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post." [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]

Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum's editorial an "alarmist screed."

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views," Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration's U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 )

Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]

The American Chemical Society's scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds ? Discovery.com —March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' —July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' ? July 5, 2009

In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate]

Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist's Reaction to Baum's Editorial: (For full letters see here.)

Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.

Thomas E. D'Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.

Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?

Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved. The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.

R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands, Texas

Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!

Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?


Advertisement

Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.

Dennis Malpass
Magnolia, Texas

I can't accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.

Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah, Tenn.

Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum's editorials. But his use of "climate-change deniers" to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate's complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to "do our part" for Earth's climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other "free-market fanatics," and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.

Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.

I would like to see the ACS Board cap Baum's political pen and trade him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.

Wallace Embry
Columbia, Tenn.

In the interest of brevity, I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June 22 edition of C&EN to one word: Disgusting.

Louis H. Rombach
Wilmington, Del.

I am particularly offended by the false analogy with creationists. It is easy to just dismiss anyone who dares disagree as being "unscientific."

Daniel B. Rego
Las Vegas

While Baum obviously has strong personal views on the subject, I take great offense that he would use C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.

William Tolley
San Diego

I appreciate it when C&EN presents information from qualified supporters of either, and preferably both, sides of an issue to help readers decide what is correct, rather than dispensing your conclusions and ridiculing people who disagree with you.

P. S. Lowell
Lakeway, Texas

I am a retired Ph.D. chemical engineer. During my working years, I was involved in many environmental issues concerning products and processes of the companies for which I worked. I am completely disgusted with the June 22 editorial. I do not consider it to be very scientific to castigate skeptics of man-made global warming. [...] [Global warming fears are] not of particular concern because "the ocean is a very large sink for carbon dioxide." [...] The overall problem here is that there is already an abundance of scientific illiteracy in the American public that will not be improved by Baum's stance in what should be a scientific magazine. Theories are not proven by consensus—but by data from repeatable experimentation that leaves no doubt of interpretation.

Charles M. Krutchen
Daphne, Ala.

Please do not keep writing C&EN editorials according to the liberal religion's credo—"Attack all climate-change deniers, creationists, conservatives, people who voted for George W. Bush, etc." It is a sign of weakness in your argument when you attack those who disagree. [...] Your choice of terminology referring to skeptical scientists who don't toe your line as CCD, climate-change deniers, and putting them in association with Holocaust deniers, is unworthy of an editorial in a scientific periodical. Who don't you go head-to-head with the critics? Please don't keep doing this. Find a scientific writer for the editorial page. We get plenty of this pap from the mainstream media and do not need it in C&EN.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Heinrich Brinks
Monterey, Calif.

Your utter disdain of CCDs and the accusations of improper tactics you ascribe to them cannot be dismissed. However bitter you personally may feel about CCDs, it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you. The results presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you call the CCD's "favorite whipping boy," do indeed fall into the category of predictions that fail to match the data, requiring a return to the drawing board. Your flogging of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is not only infantile but beggars you to contribute facts to back up your disdain. Incidentally, why do we fund climate studies by U.S. Global Change Research Program if the problem is settled?

William E. Keller
Santa Fe, N.M.

For all of the letters send in repsone to Baum's editorial see here.

© 2009 Marc Morano - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


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

Marc Morano is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009. Morano served for three years as a senior advisor, speechwriter, and climate researcher for U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as he also managed the award-winning communication operations of the GOP side. Morano, who has spent years researching climate change, environmental, and energy issues, traveled to Greenland in 2007 to investigate global warming claims. Morano was featured in a profile in the New York Times in April 2009. As Senate staff, Morano also attended the United Nation's climate eco-conferences held in Kenya, Indonesia, and Poland in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Morano authored and compiled the 2007 groundbreaking report of 400-plus dissenting scientists and the follow-up 2009 report of 700-plus scientists dissenting from man-made global warming fears.

Morano has held both White House and Capitol Hill Press credentials and a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He has attended and reported on numerous international eco-conferences as well as the 2002 UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa. Prior to joining the Senate, Morano worked for well over a decade as an investigative journalist, documentary maker, radio talk show host and national television correspondent. In 2000, his investigative television documentary "Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths" created an international firestorm. His reporting has made international news, including appearances and coverage on CNN, Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, BBC TV, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, US Weekly Magazine, web links from the Drudge Report, the entertainment show Extra TV, and Politically Incorrect w/ Bill Maher.

Web site: ClimateDepot.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Morano/marc104.htm

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 07:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The above isn't a scientific source; however facts are still facts, and the reporter did a great job. Here is something worthy of quoting from above, which disputes the "concensus" claims:

In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate]

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 07:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Opinion
Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming
By John Lott

Published December 08, 2009
| FOXNews.com
Print Email Share Comments Text Size As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain's Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures."

But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.

Let's take the issue of data. The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might be speeded up.

Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

"Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."

A press spokesman for the British Met, John Hammond, confirmed this statement in a telephone conversation on Monday to FoxNews.com. But the claimed confidentiality restrictions have hardly been followed consistently. When asked why the University of East Anglia was allowed to release the data to the Met but not to other academics, Mr. Hammond e-mailed back: "This is a question for the UEA." Unfortunately, however, neither the University of East Anglia nor anyone associated with the CRU was willing to answer any questions about the climate research conducted at the university.

But why would countries want confidentiality agreements on decades old data that they are providing? "Climate data continues to have value so long as it is commercially confidential," Mr. Hammond says. But when pushed for evidence that this was in fact the concerns that countries had raised, Mr. Hammond said: "Although I do not have evidence to hand at the moment, some nations, especially in Africa for example, believe that the information does have commercial value." Earlier, in July, the Met had raised a different issue -- that scientists in other countries would be less willing to share their scientific research if the Met could be expected to pass on the data to others.

However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. "Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, told FoxNews.com. In addition, while the data access may be restricted in some countries because they sell data and forecasts, that doesn't explain why the data isn't released for all other countries.

It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below." Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.

Global warming advocates may believe that if they just keep shouting that everyone agrees with them, they will be able to enact their far-reaching regulations before everyone catches on. With President Obama's -- and the Democrats' -- fondness for more spending and increased regulations, our hope may have to rest with India and China to finally bring the Copenhagen conference to its senses.

John R. Lott, Jr.is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/08/john-lott-climate-gate-global-warming-east-anglia/

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 07:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The above is an opinion piece, but it's worthy of a look.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

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

posted July 28, 2011 08:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I haven't read through everything posted. I'm reasonably certain that neither global warming nor man's possible influence on it were disproven.

Way to go on finding a reference to a modern climate project by Nasa, jwhop. Too bad that study neither rejects that global warming has happened, nor disproves that the world's animal environment (including human activity) have had an influence. The study only tested the models used in the IPCC study, and found them to be inaccurate.

So, the project for the two of you continues to be to disprove the occurance of global warming (as Jwhop occasionally likes to play at), and disprove that the measured rise in global temperature couldn't have anything to do with humans.

It's only accepted that manmade global warming is the reality because there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove such a belief. ALL those sceptic science papers have failed across the board in changing the prevalent thought on the matter. That's what you're contending with. You want to paint the other side as believers, but they're only believing what science is telling them. Until that changes, the believers are the guys not going along with science. No one-off articles, or disproving of computer models, or paid psuedo-science engineers are going to make a dent in the conversation.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 08:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It doesn't surprise me that you didn't read anything that opposes what you believe. But there actually is no evidence to support the manmade causality hypothesis, because the data from the models have failed. It is becoming ever more clear that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this conversation.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

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

posted July 28, 2011 09:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't read anything that opposes what the expert entities around the world believe. That's logical Randall...any way you slice it. Which is more rational, believing the word of scientists worldwide, or believing a couple guys of questionable critical thinking skills on the internet? The choice is pretty easy.

quote:
But there actually is no evidence to support the manmade causality hypothesis, because the data from the models have failed.

That doesn't work as a statement. Just because models have failed, does not mean that human activity couldn't have had bearing on first the warming and then the sustained higher temperatures of the last decade. Models that fail only disprove the basis for the models. It doesn't tangentially make a case against the most widely suspected cause.

Reality is plenty cause to be part of any conversation. When people are making fantastic and unrealistic claims about something they believe to be true, they deserve to hear from someone more grounded in reality. I've only been in this conversation in this capacity. I don't start threads stating trying to prove global warming. There are plenty of entities to make that case from a position of superior credibility. I only respond when people make outlandish claims against the science.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

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

posted July 28, 2011 09:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When are you going to come to your senses acoustic and admit the burden of proof always falls on the proponent?

I don't have to prove a damned thing, Randall either for that matter.

The proponents of man made global warming have the burden of proof to substantiate their claims. They fail to do so at every turn.

Their computer climate models don't work and their ranks are full of frauds, hoaxers, con artists and outright liars.

More than enough, plenty more than enough proof in the form of rational scientific papers by real climate scientists have been presented on this forum to put the crackpot theory of man made global warming in the trash can of history.

Perhaps you're attempting to score the honor of being the last human alive to believe in this crackpot theory...which is nothing more than junk science.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 10:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Scientists worldwide? Thousands of scientists worldwide are dissenters! The dissenters are not a couple; they far outnumber the 52 or so who showed up at the last church meeting of your religion. As I said, you have nothing of any substance to offer to this conversation except for mindless regurgitation of rhetoric from your evangelical leaders. You should just bow out and stop wasting our time.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 10:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Science...true science...revises itself as new information becomes available. The doubling of CO2 with no climate repercussions is a substantial flaw in the manmade hypothesis. But nothing falsifies warming theory, so that's not science. The numbers, they are a-changing, Jwhop. It won't be long before the tide turns and those con artists are fully exposed. And we are on the rational side, which is the winning side.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

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

posted July 28, 2011 11:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You and I..and some others have always been on the rational side of issue Randall.

We've always known the sun is the main variable factor in earth's climate.

And

We've always known that of the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the human contribution of the 0.117% due to CO2 emissions by humans couldn't possibly be the driver of global warming...or cooling.

And

We've always known CO2 is not a pollutant but is rather an essential component for plant, animal and human life on earth.

To me, the arguments made by man made global warmists have been crackpot arguments from the beginning.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 28, 2011 11:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree; if you break manmade global warming down, it's actually several pieces--each of which hinges on pseudoscience. Unlike the failed computer models, sun activity actually has been a successsful predictor of climate within close to 70 percent accuracy. Compare that to zero percent with the alarmists' models.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 29, 2011 02:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I rolled over from my slumber and just wanted post something thst came to mind before I tumble back to sleep. You make another very interesting point, Jwhop. The CO2 levels are rising; that much is irrefutable. But the human contribution to that rise is miniscule. So, human activity cannot affect the process either positively or negatively. CO2 is a natural byproduct of a flourishing ecology. Even if these pseudoscientists finally admit that CO2 is not a pollutant to be regulated but is a big positive and beneficial thing, humans can't take the credit for it. We truly are benign, completely impotent, and utterly insignificant relative to the global scale.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

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

posted July 29, 2011 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh? Some more self-congratulating? Awesome.

quote:
When are you going to come to your senses acoustic and admit the burden of proof always falls on the proponent?

I don't have to prove a damned thing, Randall either for that matter.


That's funny.

You are a proponent of a theory, Jwhop. A theory that you've created several threads for in an effort to convince others of the saliency of your opinion. (But clearly you're not the "religionist" in this conversation.)

The opinion of climate watchers worldwide is easily found online. You can go to any of the top organizations, and readily find an informed position that is opposed to the sceptical position.

quote:
More than enough, plenty more than enough proof in the form of rational scientific papers by real climate scientists have been presented on this forum to put the crackpot theory of man made global warming in the trash can of history.

If this were true, one would rationally think you'd give up trying to prove your point. Clearly, you don't believe yourself as just yesterday you were posting more stuff that you believe bolsters your point.

quote:
Scientists worldwide?

If you'd like to disagree by posting something that disagrees with this, do so. What I've said is easily discoverable.

quote:
The dissenters are not a couple; they far outnumber the 52 or so who showed up at the last church meeting of your religion.

So you say, but never prove. Once again, rationally if actual dissenting scientists outnumbered those that don't dissent, then we would logically see a different opinion put forward by all the major climate institutions of the world. We don't see that. We've never seen that.

People that believe a religion have some mythology that they follow. People of a religion don't follow the word of the preeminent scientists. Understand your position in this equation.

quote:
As I said, you have nothing of any substance to offer to this conversation except for mindless regurgitation of rhetoric from your evangelical leaders.

And you're saying that this is somehow unlike you? At least the proponents of what I've said are found in the institutions I've referenced. This cannot be said of you and Jwhop.

quote:
Science...true science...revises itself as new information becomes available. The doubling of CO2 with no climate repercussions is a substantial flaw in the manmade hypothesis.

I don't believe you're in a position to make such an assessment. Last I checked you never showed any credentials pertaining to climate science. Science does and will continue to revise itself. I have no doubt that modern climate scientists are trying to understand why the planet warmed and then leveled out at a historically warm levels.

quote:
But nothing falsifies warming theory, so that's not science.

Not nothing, but certainly not a couple Conservatives trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on some random site.

quote:
And we are on the rational side, which is the winning side.

That's also pretty funny.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 29, 2011 12:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We can't offer you any evidence of the credentials of the dissenters (from NASA to former NOAA employess), because you don't read it. You're like a broken record saying the same mantra over and over. You're completely irrational. And you offer nothing new to this conversation. Thousands and thousands of climate scientists are coming forth and outnumbering your priests, and the only reason the manmade hypothesis (it's not a theory) hasn't disappeared is due to the political motives. It may just be a couple of conservatives on here, but we do a great job of keeping the truth at the forefront on this Forum, and there are millions more in the US working to obliterate funding for these shysters.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

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

posted July 29, 2011 12:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
You're like a broken record saying the same mantra over and over.

I'm like a broken record? That's an interesting opinion.

quote:
We can't offer you any evidence of the credentials of the dissenters (from NASA to former NOAA employess), because you don't read it.

Do you not believe that a person should accept the opinion of the recognized experts over a regular layperson? That's what is rational to me. To call such a stance irrational is irrational.

quote:
And you offer nothing new to this conversation.

You're right. It's the same old reality it's been for years now.

quote:
Thousands and thousands of climate scientists are coming forth and outnumbering your priests

Let's stay out of the realm of fantasy, shall we?

quote:
and the only reason the manmade hypothesis (it's not a theory) hasn't disappeared is due to the political motives.

Speculation.

quote:
It may just be a couple of conservatives on here, but we do a great job of keeping the truth at the forefront on this Forum

Laughable.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 29, 2011 12:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm no longer going to address you. Instead of rebuttal to the issues and questions I raise, all you can do is say nonsensical statements. I have some great stuff to post today from credentialed climatologists for the ones here with an open mind, and from this point on, I will be ignoring you. Have a good day, sir.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

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

posted July 29, 2011 01:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nothing I've said is "nonsensical". That's not my stock and trade. Everything I've said is common sense. You don't turn to the uninformed for expert opinion. You turn to people who know, people that are considered experts in their fields.

Nowhere has there been a rebuttal of the fact that these expert entities do, in fact, espouse the opinion of manmade global warming. If sceptics were truly flooding the system, it's remarkable how little they've influenced things.

In fact, your personal inability to make simple concessions on the fact that I'm right about this, proves that you're a believer against common sense. You've shown the same stubborness I have, but have decided to be stubborn on a position that lacks credibility. It's simply remarkable that you are able to think otherwise.

Another matter of common sense for which you're mistaken is the idea that you're going to convert people here. Know your audience. Those that agree with you created their opinion long before you cut and pasted anything on it. Those that don't agree see the logic of looking to the scientific community for their expert testimonial on the subject. They're not going to be swayed by someone's ill-conceived desire to convince them the scientific community is wrong.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

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

posted July 29, 2011 01:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Note: Only 52 scientists agreed to IPCC 2007 summary report linking human CO2 to global warming. In contrast, 650 scientists have publicly announced their disagreement with the theory of man-made global warming. In addition, 31,000 American scientists/researchers have signed the Oregon Petition stating their direct opposition to the Kyoto global warming agreement. Approximately 17,000 signers have a PhD or a M.S. (additional details of signers listed here).

(If you are interested in an analysis of IPCC scientists who support man-made global warming theory, visit here.)



Quote by John Dewey: “Scepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.”

x

Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”

x


Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."


x


Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK: “In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.”

x

Quote by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”

x

Quote by Andrey Illarionov, economic adviser to Vladimir Putin: “Ideology on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism.”

x

Quote by Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist: “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

x


Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”


x

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

x

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.

x

Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

x

Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

x

Quote by George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: "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."

x


Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."

x


Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”


x


Quote by Claude Culross, organic chemistry: “Dire predictions of catastrophe from that bottomless pit of disasters du jour, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are based solely on computer models that amount to poorly crafted mathematical opinions, not experimental proof....There is no proof that man-made carbon dioxide causes additional warming, or that carbon-dioxide reduction would reduce warming.”

x


Quote by Ritesh Arya, geologist, specializes in hydrogeology and groundwater resources in the Himalayas: “There is urgent need to put the phenomenon [global warming], which had not been triggered off suddenly, in the right perspective....There is a hype of global warming created by western mass media and there is a need to redefine the whole concept.”

x


Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist: “The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth's surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature....Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises - just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans - heated by the sun - are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.”


x


Quote by Peter Dailey, director of atmospheric science, AIR Worldwide: “There is now a near consensus that global air temperatures are increasing, however, there is no consensus on how this has affected the temperature of the world’s oceans, and in particular in the Atlantic Ocean, or how much of the recent warming trend is attributable to man’s activities....For the layman, there is sometimes a tendency to regard every new ‘discovery’ or scientific finding from the latest published paper as an inviolate fact....In reality, rarely is there ever a last and final word in studies of complex systems such as earth’s environment. Rather, science is a dynamic process based on the scientific method in which researchers test hypotheses leading to new discoveries, but also reexamine earlier theories and try to improve, build upon, or extend them.”

x


Quote by Mark Paquette, meteorologist, Accuweather: “The earth's climate is ridiculously complicated, and carbon dioxide is not the only thing that influences the climate that is changing. In fact, probably EVERYTHING in the earth's climate system changes at one time or another. So, earth's changing climate can not be entirely attributed to carbon dioxide levels rising.”


x


Quote by Ian McQueen, chemical engineer: "Carbon dioxide is not the bogeyman - there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change, to the extent that it has changed....Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect, McQueen said, but 32 per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, he said, is currently at 380 parts per million; if that were upped to 560 parts per million, Earth's temperature would only rise about 0.3 degrees.”

x


Quote by Art Raiche, former chief research scientist, Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: “The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world....The eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means.”

x


Quote by Kevin Warwick, professor of cybernetics-University of Reading, England, research in artificial intelligence, control, robotics: “I am afraid that I do not hold with the theory of ‘global warming’ – there will always be climate change....Big thing here is – do we know what we are doing that is bringing about climate change? At present the answer to this is NO.”

x


Quote by Theodore G. Pavlopoulos, retired U.S. Navy physicist and chemist, New York Academy of Sciences: “CO2 in air has been branded as the culprit for causing the green house effect, causing global warming. However, regularly omitted is another important green house gas also present in air and in much higher concentration. It is water vapor. In the air, it absorbs infrared radiation (heat) more strongly than CO2....The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is considerable lower than that of water vapor; it is just a few percent. Consequently, doubling the CO2 concentration would not significantly increase the combined absorption of the two green house gases of water vapor and CO2.”


x


Quote by Muriel Newman, mathematician, a member of the Northland Conservation Board: “Around the world, as controversy over climate change continues to grow, it remains very clear that contrary to what the politicians tell us, not only is there is no consensus of scientific thought on this matter, but the science is certainly not settled. In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, at a time when advocates of man-made global warming continue to push government policies to restrict energy use and the burning of fossil fuels in order to prevent ‘catastrophic’ warming, the world continues to cool....That is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to sacrifice living standards in order to “save the planet” is just political spin designed to persuade the public to accept green taxes.”

x


Quote by Dennis Hollars, astrophysicist: "What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth....carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow....'Mars' atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming.”

x


Quote by Larry Bell, University of Houston, one of designers of International Space Station, has forthcoming book, "Climate
Hysteria": “Cause and effect relationships between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from all sources and global temperatures are inconclusive. Although carbon dioxide levels have generally been observed to increase during warm periods and fall during colder ones, the temperature changes typically lead rather than follow carbon dioxide changes.”


x


Quote by W.J. “Bill” Collins, professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences-James Cook University: “As the climate change debate moves from the scientific to the political, it is important to stay with the facts. The bottom line is that humans cannot prevent global warming. Therefore, we should not be forced into emissions trading schemes, or any other scheme that sacrifices Australia’s economic advantage and standard of living for the wrong reasons....Sure, let us try to lessen our environmental impact and develop a sustainable economy, but we should not be carried away by misconceptions about what is driving climate change. It’s with the Earth itself.”

x


Quote by John Williams, agricultural scientist, researcher, author, and educator, University of Melbourne: “There is no proof that carbon dioxide is causing or precedes global warming....All indications are that the minor warming cycle finished in 2001 and that Arctic ice melting is related to cyclical orbit-tilt-axis changes in earth’s angle to the sun.”


x


Quote by Roger W. Cohen, physics, American Physical Society fellow: “I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is....I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.”

x


Quote by Sherwood Thoele, analytical chemist and mathematician: “I submit that there is no man-made global cooling/warming, that there is no study or research data that makes a good argument to that effect when carefully examined objectively and that the Earth has many different and wide ranging cycles that man cannot control, no matter how much he would like to.”

x


Quote by Michael J. Myers, analytical chemist, specializes in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing: “I am troubled by the lack of common sense regarding carbon dioxide emissions. Our greatest greenhouse gas is water. Atmospheric spectroscopy reveals why water has a 95 percent and CO2 a 3.6 percent contribution to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3.2 billion tons. That equals about 0.0168 percent of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0.00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

x


Quote by Ed Rademacher, chemical engineer: “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and, in fact, is a desired....To date, global warming alarmists have not come close to providing any valid scientific data that proves humans are the sole source of changes in so-called global average temperatures. Quite simply, correlation between the carbon dioxide levels and the global average temperatures does not prove a causal relationship.”

x


Quote by Robert A. Perkins, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Alaska, registered civil engineer has 30 years work in arctic and sub-arctic: “All the ‘science’ that you read about global warming is based on models, not observed facts. Here are some reasons to doubt the models: Expert statistician Akaike proved that the more parameters a model needs to fit the historical data, the less certain the model will predict the future....All the climate models are incredibly complex, hence ‘over-parameterized.’ The climate models, however, do not even fit the present data, at least in the Arctic....Finally, none of the published models that ‘blame’ human activity for the warming trend account for the known historical variations in global climate.”

x


Gerhard Lobert, physicist, Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics: “As the glaciological and tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred many times in the past, both with the magnitude as well as with the time rate of the temperature change that have occurred in the recent decades.”

x


Quote by Norm Kalmanovitch, geophysicist: “There is zero warming possible from further increases in CO2....The temperature record shows that the global temperature has been increasing naturally at a rate of about 0.5°C/century since the Little Ice Age. The forcing parameter is based on the full measured 0.6°C/century without subtracting the natural warming of 0.5°C/century giving a forcing parameter that is 6 times larger than can be attributed to the measured increase in CO2....Far less obvious, but the major fatal flaw of the forcing parameter is that it is based on an observation of temperature and CO2 concentration without taking into account the actual physical properties of CO2 and its limited effect on thermal radiation as defined by quantum physics.”

x


Quote by David Stockwell, ecological modeler, published research articles on climate change, authored book about “niche modeling": “It would be recognized that the IPCC is just another review, and an unstructured and biased one at that. Its main in-scope goal is to find a human influence on climate, and the range of reasons for climate change are out-of-scope, creating a systematic bias against natural explanations for climate change. I think climate models are inadequately validated, confidence in the skill of models to forecast global warming is vastly exaggerated, and current skill is not enough to serve useful purposes.”


x


Quote by Tom Kondis, chemist, a consultant with practical experience in absorption and emission spectroscopy: “To support their argument, advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth's surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed....The fictitious ‘trapped heat’ property, which they
aggressively promote with a dishonest ‘greenhouse gas’ metaphor, is based on their misrepresentation of natural absorption and emission energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws of physics.”


x


Quote by Bob Ashworth, chemical engineer, 16 U.S. patents, has written 55 technical papers, American Geophysical Union, authored a 2008 technical analysis of global warming: “The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth.”

x


Quote by Greg Benson, earth scientist, geologic study/geologic modeling: “The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has changed greatly since fossilized life began on Earth nearly 600 million years ago. In fact, there is only 1/19 as much CO2 in the air today as there was 520 million years ago. That high CO2 was hardly the recipe for disaster.”


x


Quote by Dave Dahl, chief meteorologist of Minnesota’s ABC Channel 5: “Many peer-reviewed scientific papers are now looking at the real possibility that the sun may play the main role in climate variation here on earth....Recent studies show that the unusually ‘quiet’ sun may be one of the reasons for the unusually cold winter that was experienced across much of the Northern Hemisphere. An extremely low number of solar flares and sunspots may be linked to the current cooling trend globally.”

x


Quote by Dan Pangburn, mechanical engineer, author of a climate research paper: “For most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present....The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. Actions to control the amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity.”


x


Quote by Colin Robinson, founder of the Department of Economics- University of Surrey UK, Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society: “In an echo of earlier times, the climate change prophets have in recent years tried to silence counter views and suppress dissent. August members of the Royal Society, a body once noted for its cultivation of debate in science, are now leaders of the ‘science is settled’ camp: the only debate they consider to be legitimate is about choice among the different forms of the centralized action they believe is required to deal with the problems they foresee.”

x


Quote by Geoffrey Kearsley, geographer, environmental communication-University of Otago, director of Wilderness Research Foundation: “It is said that we are now beyond the science and that the science of global warming has been finalized or determined and that all scientists agree. Skeptics and deniers are simply cynical pawns in the pockets of the big oil companies. This is unfortunate, to say the least. Science is rarely determined or finalized; science evolves and the huge complexity of climate science will certainly continue to evolve in the light of new facts, new experiences and new
understandings.”


x


Quote by Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, staff physicist at MIT: “The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue,” Chapman wrote. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."

x


Quote by Jeffrey A. Glassman, physicist and engineer, former division Chief Scientist - Hughes Aircraft Company, expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere: “CO2 concentration is a response to the proxy temperature in the Vostok ice core data, not a cause....The Vostok data support an entirely new model. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Fires, volcanoes, and now man deposit CO2 into the atmosphere, but those effects are transient. What exists in steady state is CO2 perpetually pumped into the atmosphere by the oceans....Atmospheric CO2 is a dynamic stream, from the warm ocean and back into the cool ocean. Public policy represented by the Kyoto Accords and the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be scrapped as wasteful, unjustified, and futile.”

x


Quote by Jon Hartzler, retired science professor St. Cloud State University: “We are left with what we call correlations, like increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature. This is not proof, only suggestive in science....The Chinese laugh at the Kyoto Protocol and the ‘civilized’ world trying to fix ‘global warming.’ Our puny little effort (but very costly) when China refuses and puts their economy first makes us seem insignificant.”

x


Quote by Mike Thompson, Chief Meteorologist of Kansas City news station, former U.S. Navy meteorologist: "It is easier to silence scientific dissent by utilizing the politics of personal destruction, than to actually debate them on the merits of their arguments. That should tell you something about the global warming debate...there is none right now....it's either you believe, or you are to be discredited."


x


Quote by Arnold Kling, economist, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board: “I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it....One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions by some drastic amount, only to discover that--oops--it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else.”


x


Quote by Klaus P. Heiss, formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, space engineer,NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Naval Research, International Astronautics Academy: “The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded....The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming....Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun's activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year cycles
occur and sunspots.”


x


Quote by Patrick Frank, chemist, author of more than 50 peer-reviewed articles: “So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the U.S. congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore.”

x


Quote by Jonathan DuHamel, geologist: “I am a geologist familiar with the scientific literature on climate change, but I have yet to see any proof or compelling evidence supporting the assertion that human carbon-dioxide emissions have produced measurable temperature change,”...The current warm period is well within natural variations.”

x


Quote by Ferdinand Engelbeen, chemist and process engineer: “Why ‘skeptical’? As I have some experience with models, be it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are exactly known....To make a climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball.”


x


Quote by Kevin Lemanowicz, Chief Meteorologist of broadcast station in Massachussetts: "Did you know that if the greenhouse effect didn't exist, life on this planet would be frozen? Further, I'm sure you remember from grade-school science that carbon dioxide is vital for life. Plants need it, and, in turn, give us oxygen. No CO2 means no plants, which means little oxygen for us. Certainly not enough to live on. Why, then, is CO2 called "pollution"? Is it really bad for us?"


x


Quote by Glenn Speck, chemist, Isotek Environmental Lab, 35 years testing air, water, fuel, and soil for chemicals, including CO2: “The public has been repeatedly misled that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. Totally false. Unfortunately, man-made climate change, or anthropogenic global warming as it’s more commonly known, has become a political issue rather than a scientific one.”

x


Quote by John Lott, Jr., economics, senior research scientist, University of Maryland: “Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but ‘there has been no net global warming since 1998.’ Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling [...] Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).”


x


Quote by William Hunt, research scientist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, served as a wildlife biologist and a geologist: “Scientists and activists alike have jumped on the [global warming] bandwagon. It’s become a fad, a trend, a wave of enthusiasm and the scientists are going along with the fad to get research grants and the media limelight....The facts, such as we can observe and calculate them, do not support the idea of man-made global warming. Natural processes completely eclipse anything that man can accomplish- a minor rainstorm expends more energy than a large nuclear explosive releases and the lowest category of hurricane expends more energy than all of the nuclear weapons ever produced in a short time.”

x


Quote by Al Lipson, meteorologist former lead forecaster at the Weather Channel and Accuweather: “[Promoters of climate fear] want to make money. Billions of dollars are being funneled into research...I feel mans’ influence on climate is a micro influence Nature has a tendency to balance itself on a macro scale....Extreme weather events happen. Quit spinning research to foster monetary and political agendas. That's dishonest science.”

x


Quote by Peter Friedman, professor mechanical engineering-University of Massachusetts, member of the American Geophysical Union: “Several respected climate scientists have told me that there would be even more vocal skeptics if they were not afraid of losing funding, much of which is controlled by politically correct organizations.”

x


Quote by R. W. Bradnock, scientist, former head of geography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King’s College London, field-based research on sea level and environmental change: “In my own narrow area of research, I know that many of the claims about the impact of ‘global warming’ in Bangladesh, for example, are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has nearly doubled.”


x


Quote by Frederick Seitz, past president, U.S. National Academy of Sciences: “It is one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh economic penalties when an environmental problem is clear-cut and severe....It is foolish to do so when the problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by observations....we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.”

x


Quote by Topper Shutt, chief meterologist, Washington D.C. Channel 9: “I try and remind our viewers that climate is always in a state of flux and yes, the world has warmed over the last 25 years but claiming that Katrina is a product of global warming is absurd. We have had much stronger hurricanes hit the United States in the past, the Labor Day or Keys hurricane of 1935 and Camille in 1969 to name just two. There is much more development now on our shores.”

x


Quote by Terry Wimberley, professor of Ecological Studies of Florida Gulf Coast University, Division of Marine Sciences and Ecological Sciences: “Scientists do not dispel the problem of global warming -- that is real -- but rather the CO2 theory of global warming, which unfortunately is not verified by geological and climate records going back thousands of years or by observed fact. The CO2 theory of climate change is based upon a computer simulation model and flawed data that has been widely criticized in scientific literature."

x


Quote by Francis T. Manns, geologist, manages Artesian Geological Research: “As a stratigrapher/paleogeographer, I have been aware throughout my career of the wide variations in the climate of Earth as recorded in the rocks. Climate change is the norm for the planet....I am unaware of any CO2 research that demonstrates a temperature anomaly that corresponds to CO2 flux in the atmosphere. On the contrary, everything I read from the refereed side of science shows CO2 to trail warming."

x


Quote by William L. Wells, chemist/chemical engineer, adjunct professor of chemistry-Murray State University: "Many in Congress promoting these measures for CO2 control mandates fail to appreciate that the atmosphere is global, hence emissions must be considered world-wide. One source indicates that China has plans to add 500 coal-fired plants in the next decade, while India is right behind with 200 plants on the drawing board. Restricting U.S. anthropogenic emissions, only a small part of the CO2 released into the environment, is a way of cutting off our economic noses to spite our faces....Without global reductions there is very little that the US can do to impact CO2 levels in the atmosphere, besides, of course, political posturing."

x


Quote by Fred W. Decker, professor of Meteorology-Oregon State University: "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. 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.”

x


Quote by Viv Forbes, soil scientist and geologist, chairman-Australian based The Carbon Sense Coalition: “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving surface temperature, and there is plenty of evidence to show that current levels of temperature and carbon dioxide are neither extreme nor of concern....It is unbelievable that many in politics and the media are whipping up public hysteria about ‘global warming’ when the best evidence suggests that for the 100 years ending in the year 2000, the century of coal, steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet planes, two world wars and a population explosion, the average surface temperature rose by only 0.6 deg, and there has been NO increase in temperature since 1998."

xx


Quote by Vincent U. Muirhead, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering, researched gas dynamics, University of Kansas: “The new green left (environmentalist) propaganda reminds me of the old red left (communist) propaganda. The dirty word is now carbon rather than capitalism. The game is simply to intrude and control everything.”

x


Quote by Louis A.G. Hissink, field geologist, editor of The Australian Institute of Geoscientists Newsletter: “Recent discoveries by NASA in the area of space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun electromagnetically where tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely measured during polar aurora displays by satellites - this enormous source of energy, and thus heat, is completely ignored as a factor affecting the earth's thermal balance in global climate models. It is this electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that modulates the earth's climate.”

x

Quote by Rosa Compagnucci, author of two IPCC reports in 2001, researcher with the National Science and Technology Commission, Department of Atmosphere Sciences - University of Buenos Aires: "Is global warming something unusual, say, the last two thousand years?...There was a global warming in medieval times, during the years between 800 and 1300. And that made Greenland, now covered with ice, christened with a name [by the Vikings] that refers to land green: 'Greenland.’”

x


Quote by Karl Bohnak, meteorologist: “Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of earth’s natural ‘greenhouse’ effect. Carbon dioxide gets all the attention because that is what is released in the burning of fossil fuels. Yet it accounts for less than 4 percent of the total greenhouse effect. For the anthropogenic global warming argument to work, water vapor must increase along with CO2. CO2’s contribution - natural and man-made - is just not enough to raise global temperatures as much as climate models predict.”

x


Quote by David Gee, geologist, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress: “So my question is extremely simple, we know temperature goes up and down. We know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"

x


Quote by Leighton Steward, geologist, twice chaired the Audubon Nature Institute and is currently the chairman of the Institute for the study of Earth and Man at SMU: “We [on earth] are at one of the lowest points of CO2 levels today....CO2’s ability to trap heat declines rapidly, logarithmically, and reaches a point of significantly reduced future effect explaining why correlations with CO2 don’t hold. A far more consistent and significant correlation exists between the planet’s temperature and the output of energy from the sun."

x


Quote by Wayne Hocking, physics professor, University of Western Ontario, who heads the Atmospheric Dynamics Group: “For this to be effective, we need to be there for 20, 30, 40 years, have a long-term data set and then we can start to make useful predictions....researchers do not know enough about the atmospheric changes and how they influence each other to draw any conclusions about global warming. We know there is so much complexity involved, we want to tread more cautiously.”


x


Quote by Chris Landsea, former IPCC scientist: “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process [IPCC process] that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

x


Quote by Roger Pielke Sr., climatologist, former NOAA researcher, former professor Colorado State: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.”


x


Quote by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: “The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one — recently born — dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets.”
x

Quote by Jack Schmitt, geology scientist and U.S. astronaut: “As a geologist, I love Earth observations, but it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a 'consensus' that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.”

x


Quote by Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician: “The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

x


Quote by Peter Friedman, professor mechanical engineering-University of Massachusetts, member of the American Geophysical Union: “The IPCC ‘policy summaries,’ written by a small group of their political operatives, frequently contradict the work of the scientists that prepare the scientific assessments. Even worse, some of the wording in the science portions has been changed by policy makers after the scientists have approved the conclusions.”


x


Quote by Joanne Simpson, former elite NASA climate scientist: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”

x


Quote by John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters: “Climate models are useless....My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit...Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.”

x


Quote by Kiminori Itoh, member of IPCC process, award-winning environmental physical chemist: "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

x


Quote by Geoffrey Kearsley, geographer, environmental communication-University of Otago, director of Wilderness Research Foundation: "Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas by a huge factor. The link between CO2 and temperature change is erratic; often, carbon follows heat rather than the uncritical popular perception that heat is induced by carbon. The oceans are a vast reservoir of dissolved CO2; as they warm, they release it and reabsorb it as they cool. Which causes what? There is much more yet to learn.”


x


Quote by Stanley Goldenberg, U.S. Government atmospheric and hurricane scientist : “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

x


Quote by Hajo Smit, meteorologist and former IPCC member: “Gore [Al] prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp [changed to skeptic camp]…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”

x


Quote by Mark L. Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy: "...consensus in science is an oxymoron. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true. And I don't even grant that there is a consensus among scientists; it's just that the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. To many of us, there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide produced by humans has any influence on the Earth's climate."

x


Quoted by Peter Stilbs, physical chemist, chairs climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry-Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm: “There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years."

x


Quote by William Hunt, research scientist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, served as a wildlife biologist and a geologist: “The problem with computer [climate] modeling is that only a tiny percentage of the literally millions of variables involved can be written into a program. It’s currently impossible for us to accurately model Earth’s climate and we are not aware of all of the variables yet.”

x


Quote by Terry Wimberley, professor of Ecological Studies of Florida Gulf Coast University, Division of Marine Sciences and Ecological Sciences: “More important [than CO2] is the interaction of solar activity (solar winds) with penetrating cosmic rays into the earth’s atmosphere. When cosmic ray activity is great a large volume of rays penetrate the earth's lower atmosphere and contribute to cloud formation and cool the earth. However, when there is a lot of solar activity, solar winds tend to blow away just enough of the cosmic rays to thwart cloud formation at the lower levels resulting in fewer clouds and global warming. This phenomenon can be documented over hundreds if not thousands of years - well before humans were able to affect atmosphere.”

x


Quote by Jonathan DuHamel, geologist: “CO2 is a minor player in the total system, and human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to total natural greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, lowering human CO2 emissions will have no measurable effect on climate, and continued CO2 emissions will have little or no effect on future temperature....While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living.”


x


Quote by Mike Thompson, Chief Meteorologist of Kansas City news station, former U.S. Navy meteorologist: "It's a slow process, but it is scary, because if someone can control your energy sources, they can control you. We are already being told what light bulbs we can and cannot use...through legislation. We are being forced to fund research into alternative energies sources that are inefficient, and that cause the price of food, energy, and everything else to rise...through legislation...rather than allow free enterprise to allocate funds to those energy sources that will survive through good old American innovation!"


x


Quote by Francis T. Manns, geologist, manages Artesian Geological Research: Manns disputes the CO2 caused ocean acidification fears. “Ocean pH is not governed by physico-chemical rules. Marine organisms control their calcium carbonate properties organically behind membranes....Objective scientists realize that coral, foraminifera and shellfish have deep mechanism that have evolved over 100s of millions of years as CO2 has fluctuated far wider than we see in the atmosphere today."

x


Quote by Viv Forbes, soil scientist and geologist, chairman-Australian based The Carbon Sense Coalition: “The output of a complex computer simulation of the atmosphere is not ‘evidence’. It is a fluttering flag of forecasts, hung on a slim flagpole of theory, resting on a leaky raft of assumptions, which is drifting without the rudder of evidence, in cross currents of ideology emotion and bias, on the wide deep and restless ocean of the unknown.”

x


Quote by Randy Cerveny, oversees Arizona State University meteorology program; named to key post UN’s World Meteorological Organization for developing a global weather archive for UN: "I don't think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic...our grandkids are going to have a lot better weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions we're just in the process of asking."
http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html

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