The Year of Record Cold Temperatures

[Fash]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... Y/10575140

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

It was all worth bolding, and all worth reading. Get your heads out of your asses and start questioning that bait you swallowed. All the real-world observable evidence is against you (i.e. anything not coming from Al Gore, the IPCC, and their politically motivated bad data).

[Aardor]

I only read the headline...but wouldn't you need a trend of falling temperatures year round over a couple of years for it to be significant at all?

[Fash]

I only read the headline...but wouldn't you need a trend of falling temperatures year round over a couple of years for it to be significant at all?

I can turn that around and ask for evidence of a trend of more (or any) deaths or impacts from abnormal heat. Seems like cold temperatures kills a significant number of people, animals, and crops each year... Perhaps we would be better off with a few extra degrees, eh?... It's just more fire for the flames of this global scam, that behind your backs is being used to build bull-shit carbon trading markets for the rich and to enslave us all under one global government.

[Funkmasterr]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... Y/10575140

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

It was all worth bolding, and all worth reading. Get your heads out of your asses and start questioning that bait you swallowed. All the real-world observable evidence is against you (i.e. anything not coming from Al Gore, the IPCC, and their politically motivated bad data).

Blasphemer.

[Aardor]

I can turn that around and ask for evidence of a trend of more (or any) deaths or impacts from abnormal heat.

Well I think you took my response to be specific. What I meant was that this years data doesn't show that global warming is or is not happening because it's simply not enough data to draw conclusions from.

Oh, and for any deaths of warmth, see the event in France where a ton of people died from heat a few summers ago (again, not enough data to show global warming is or is not happening).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

eems like cold temperatures kills a significant number of people, animals, and crops each year... Perhaps we would be better off with a few extra degrees, eh?.

As seen in the above link, heat waves cause droughts which shockingly kill crops.


Also, I have not followed global warming closely since I had to for a class in college (and especially not on this board, or I probably would have stabbed my eyes out by now). However, when I did follow it, it seemed to me that "global warming" was a bad name because it implied that everywhere on the globe would be warmer, while evidence pointed to the fact that some areas would warm (like the arctic melting the ice caps, rising ocean levels) and some would be come cooler. Additionally, this article only points out record cold temperatures, and mentions nothing about places where there were warming temperatures or no change at all. I would also like to see data indicating where record cold temperatures occur each year, and how often.

It's just more fire for the flames of this global scam, that behind your backs is being used to build bull-shit carbon trading markets for the rich and to enslave us all under one global government.

Haha, that's a pretty brash claim. What this article seems to me is that it's missing just as much data and background as many pro-global warming articles do. Granted, it's an editorial piece versus a scientific study.

I have no idea if global warming is occuring or not. All the data seems questionable from both sides, and it seems like the fact that we don't have temperature records further back than the 19th century is going to be a big problem (for both sides).

Not that the article posted says anything about average global temperature, but I ran into this article which seems kinda funny after reading the above article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm

[Funkmasterr]

I know here in MN we have had many record lows already, and more snow than we have in probably the past 3 years combined already and it's not even Christmas yet.. For what it's worth.

[Animalor]

My area got 50cm's of snow last sunday and we're expecting another 10 today/tomorrow. As I look out my window it's snowing again right now.

They're expecting the most snow in 15 years this year.

[Boogahz]

It's near 70 here again.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

haha

[Funkmasterr]

I'm sure there is some logical explanation for it though, like Bush having snow machines planted around the country to make people not believe in global warming.

[Aardor]

Sorry I tried to have a serious conversation about global warming, I should have known better.

[Funkmasterr]

Sorry I tried to have a serious conversation about global warming, I should have known better.

Yeah you should have, I only speak for myself - but when I think something is stupid I am going to display the same kind of utter intolerance for any view other than my own like the people here who believe in global warming.. Just because you tried to make convo about it doesn't mean they won't show up in this thread by the end of the day to tell everyone how stupid they are for believing anything other than the IPCC's reports, while also citing some reason that the article presented is completely irrelevant and the person that wrote it is incompetent. I know this is how it will turn out - so I skipped the foreplay.

You should know better than to have any kind of serious conversation in this forum period, tbh.

[Zaelath]

Well, I'm sure you all know what a geophysicist is, and why he's eminently qualified to discuss this topic. Explain it to me.

Then explain why this data isn't an outlier. def: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html

I'm giddy with anticipation of being called names by the playground bully, the pizza man, and his dope smoking brother, every time anyone writes an opposing view, as if it was a new thing. The hillarious part is they're all so sure there's some dark "political motivation" for global warming theory which I've never heard elucidated, but never see that there is a very clear financial motivation to take the other side.

[Zaelath]

Sorry I tried to have a serious conversation about global warming, I should have known better.

Yeah you should have, I only speak for myself - but when I think something is stupid I am going to display the same kind of utter intolerance for any view other than my own like the people here who believe in global warming..

The logic of a serial killer. Gee I wish I was on your side with the "sane" people....

[Sueven]

Yeah you should have, I only speak for myself - but when I think something is stupid I am going to display the same kind of utter intolerance for any view other than my own like the people here who believe in global warming.. Just because you tried to make convo about it doesn't mean they won't show up in this thread by the end of the day to tell everyone how stupid they are for believing anything other than the IPCC's reports, while also citing some reason that the article presented is completely irrelevant and the person that wrote it is incompetent. I know this is how it will turn out - so I skipped the foreplay.

My recent experience has been that they just ignore the threads entirely. I could be wrong-- that's what I do, so maybe I'm just projecting.

You should know better than to have any kind of serious conversation in this forum period, tbh.

I still maintain that I've had plenty of high quality serious conversations in this forum in which the participants learned something and altered their views a bit.

Anyway, the real reason I came into this thread was to post this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

Critics assert that Moon has quietly used Unification Church media assets as political propaganda tools, to covertly act in support of Moon's political agenda, including Rev. Moon's stated goal of establishing the United Nations as a theocratic one-world government, with "True Parents" in the role of Secretary-General "in eternity". This agenda, and Moon's covert use of the Washington Times in support of it were laid out in a landmark "Foundation Day"[20]. speech delivered by Reverend Moon to Unification Church members in 1997:

America cannot control the United Nations. Recently, the Republican party, had an agenda to somehow pull America out of the United Nations. But I used the Washington Times to stop that evil attempt. I mobilized many ambassadors from around the world to exert their influence to stop it. UN ambassadors and American ambassadors met to discuss how to solve the United Nations' problems. The Washington Times pointed the direction for the future. You were not aware of that, were you?

The day that the United Nations declares True Parents' Day to the world, the entire world will celebrate. Also United Nations should invite True Parents to take the position of Secretary-General in eternity.

So, without commenting on the validity of any points in the article (I didn't even read the article): Can we please never, ever cite the Washington Times again? It's got less credibility than the Weekly World News or Rosie O'Donnell's blog.

[Aardor]

Haha, i thought that was the Washington Post!

[Animale]

This is why "Global warming" is actually a bit of a misnomer. It should be "Global Climate Change", albeit with the warming trend being the driving force. Anectdotal evidence such as "snow in Buenos Aires" and "coldest day in forever in bumblefuck, USA" really don't hold a candle to the overall climate change trends that have been observed and are predicted. Maybe, if you'd actually read the IPCC report section on the Science behind global climate change, you'd understand the difference between anectdotal evidence and real science. Then again, probably not.

Finally, this is a commentary - not a peer reviewed piece of actual science. The person who wrote this (A professor with an odd personal history at UOklahoma http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/ ... php?id=257) should know better than to string together a bunch of short sample size anectdotes and present them as real science. If he truly wished to further the discourse he'd be publishing papers with data and analysis in them, instead of spouting his opinions in the Washington Times and The Sun (he published the same opinion piece almost word for word in the Sun in May - substituting other cold places from last year's winter - wish I could get published twice for the same article).

Now, he does have a few reasonable points - the main being that more work still needs to be done and that the true answer is something we cannot ever know. But, if we do not utilize the current best models/science for policy decisions - why bother doing them? When is the point does our "best scientific guess" become good enough to drive policy? I (and many other scientists through IPCC) think that this point has been passed - Prof. Deming doesn't seem to think so. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, and with more (and better qualified) scientist's agreeing with my point of view maybe folks should listen?

The ultimate goal should be to stabilize CO2 levels in our atmosphere so we don't have to find out if our models of runaway CO2 emissions are correct or not. The only way to accomplish this is to cut our CO2 emissions in a dramatic fashion - preferably through a technological solution of some sort (fusion/fission + solar + combination of others). This fellow (who is on the payroll of a major conservative thinktank that favors economic growth over all else http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=science) wants to continue business as usual - which will not accomplish the goal of CO2 stabilization (and will cause runaway CO2 emissions).

Go read some stuff other than the anectdotal strawmen presented here.
Animale

[Nick]

The funny thing is, you'll see Midnyte, Funk and the various other miscellanous retards who deny the findings of scientific research all sitting around in their old age, as the world gets more and more fucked up, twisting their own memories in self righteous gluttonous moaning, "you know I told them it was true and no one believed us - its all Al Gore's fault, he told us it was a lie!"

Also, the phrase is "climate change" you stupid fucking monkeys.

[Aslanna]

Wasn't 2007 the year of record high temperatures?

Regardless, dismissing 'global warming' due to some cold winter temperatures over what, 2 months?, is totally simplistic and ignorant. That's like saying one year if there are no hurricanes that mankind has defeated them. omg there was no major earthquake in San Francisco this year must mean earthquakes are a thing of the past! Please... Use some fucking logic and not just large fonts.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Wasn't 2007 the year of record high temperatures?

Regardless, dismissing 'global warming' due to some cold winter temperatures over what, 2 months?, is totally simplistic and ignorant. That's like saying one year if there are no hurricanes that mankind has defeated them. omg there was no major earthquake in San Francisco this year must mean earthquakes are a thing of the past! Please... Use some fucking logic and not just large fonts.

I agree. It's almost as simplistic and ignorant to assume the opposite based on some warm temps.

[Sueven]

Now, he does have a few reasonable points - the main being that more work still needs to be done and that the true answer is something we cannot ever know. But, if we do not utilize the current best models/science for policy decisions - why bother doing them? When is the point does our "best scientific guess" become good enough to drive policy? I (and many other scientists through IPCC) think that this point has been passed - Prof. Deming doesn't seem to think so. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, and with more (and better qualified) scientist's agreeing with my point of view maybe folks should listen?

QFT.

The question of whether global warming (ok, 'climate change') exists is a scientific question. It is not a political question. Opinions of non-scientists-- especially those based on political reasoning-- are irrelevant. My opinion is irrelevant. Funk has an irrelevant opinion too. Same with more or less everybody else, too.

The absolute best that a non-scientist can do is to conduct a survey of the scientific literature on global warming. This does not mean google and news articles-- it means reading actual scholarship published largely in academic journals. Of course, to do that, you probably need some basic familiarity with science, at least enough so that a scholarly science article would be comprehensible to you (I doubt I'd be able to make much sense of it). So anyway, IF you can read science scholarship, AND you actually go out and make the effort to collect most of the scholarship on climate change, AND you actually read it, THEN you might be qualified to have an opinion as to how strong our best scientific guess is, and as to whether that's strong enough to impact policy. But that's it.

The scientists who are conducting the research-- or at least deeply engaging with the research-- are the ones who have the relevant opinions. How strong a consensus is, and how confident scientists are in that consensus, is the best measure we have of the reality of climate change.

The question of what we ought to DO about climate change is a policy question. That's a question which is much easier to have a legitimate opinion about, and I'd give some respect to the opinion of anyone on this forum. Interestingly, though, climate-change-is-a-scam faction has repeatedly stressed that they don't disagree with the POLICY preferences of the climate-change-is-real faction. Instead, they argue that they think that climate change is not real, but support behaving as if it were. This is just sort of strange to me.

The strongest climate-change-is-a-scam position that seems at all reasonable is: "After having reviewed the scientific literature, I think that substantial unsettled questions still exist. While the majority of scientists seem to be leaning toward 'climate change is real,' the majority is not that vast and the lean is not too strong."

Maybe that position can be justified. But unless you can tell me WHY you think the science is wrong, I don't think anything stronger is justifiable.

Do people SERIOUSLY think that scientists believe in global warming because last years temperatures set a record? Or even because of a generalized trend over the past couple decades and nothing else? You do realize that when Animale talks about "models," he's not just making up words?

[Funkmasterr]

I think there is logic behind it, the phrase being tossed around by everyone is "Global Warming", not climate shift, climate change, or anything else - it is global warming. Record lows are being recorded in all areas of the globe, which is not just something you can write off. And to be honest, considering how old this planet is, 1 year of record lows is about as relevant as them saying there is a warming trend in the 50 years of hard accurate data they have..

[Nick]

No, actually, it's climate change, you fucking idiot.

Some places get warmer, some get colder, sea levels rise. Have you simply not read anything to do with the subject for the last 5 years and think that being an ignorant contrary little shitbag is in some way cool?

[Boogahz]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[Noysyrump]

10,000 BC. the Northern hemesphere was covered in ice.
800 AD. Scandanavian 'Vikings' settle and build farms on Greenland.
1200 AD. A bunch of Vikings freeze to death on Greenland.

The Globe has its own cycle. Water is the #1 greenhouse gas, and well 70% of the earths surface is just that. So to honestly believe you driving a hybrid will save the world is just plain silly. At 100% combustion the gasoline engine emits 2 gasses. Vaporized water at a 1 gallon of water to 1 gallon of gas ratio. Wich by the way, is also coming out of your pie hole this very instant. And Carbondioxide. Wich everyone is all so OMGZORS about. Well CO2 also comes from... wait for it... Your pie hole too. Well my car breaths maybe 2 hours a day when i drive (OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS Cool) a lot. You however emit the very same gasses 24 hours a day. So why dont YOU save the world and just friggin die already.

[Aardor]

10,000 BC. the Northern hemesphere was covered in ice.
800 AD. Scandanavian 'Vikings' settle and build farms on Greenland.
1200 AD. A bunch of Vikings freeze to death on Greenland.

The Globe has its own cycle. Water is the #1 greenhouse gas, and well 70% of the earths surface is just that. So to honestly believe you driving a hybrid will save the world is just plain silly. At 100% combustion the gasoline engine emits 2 gasses. Vaporized water at a 1 gallon of water to 1 gallon of gas ratio. Wich by the way, is also coming out of your pie hole this very instant. And Carbondioxide. Wich everyone is all so OMGZORS about. Well CO2 also comes from... wait for it... Your pie hole too. Well my car breaths maybe 2 hours a day when i drive (OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS Cool) a lot. You however emit the very same gasses 24 hours a day. So why dont YOU save the world and just friggin die already.

Mr. Rump, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Zaelath]

It's not like there's not multiple schools of though on this stuff, and part of why it's called "climate change" are because of things like the current warming trend having the ability to reduce the ice caps, which in turn dumps masses of fresh water into the ocean, which affects the flow of the gulf stream, which stops much of the northern hemisphere that is warmed by the gulf stream from icing over. (Yup, that's the theory The Day After Tomorrow was based on, but the switch was dramatised; it's rapid, but not quite that rapid) Once all that happens the increased permanent snow cover reflects more radiation off the planet settling us in for a nice ice age.

There's also the thought that the industrial age has staved off the ice age we're "due" for, which might be a good thing, especially given the interglacial periods are short compared to ice ages.

Regardless, the trend line is very much up, and that hasn't even been seriously in dispute for a long time now (just what's causing it), so this guy is a jackass for suggesting a few outliers mean anything.

[Winnow]

Europe gets screwed way before the rest of us! They're artificially warm due to the ocean current.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4485840.stm

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

10,000 BC. the Northern hemesphere was covered in ice.
800 AD. Scandanavian 'Vikings' settle and build farms on Greenland.
1200 AD. A bunch of Vikings freeze to death on Greenland.

The Globe has its own cycle. Water is the #1 greenhouse gas, and well 70% of the earths surface is just that. So to honestly believe you driving a hybrid will save the world is just plain silly. At 100% combustion the gasoline engine emits 2 gasses. Vaporized water at a 1 gallon of water to 1 gallon of gas ratio. Wich by the way, is also coming out of your pie hole this very instant. And Carbondioxide. Wich everyone is all so OMGZORS about. Well CO2 also comes from... wait for it... Your pie hole too. Well my car breaths maybe 2 hours a day when i drive (OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS Cool) a lot. You however emit the very same gasses 24 hours a day. So why dont YOU save the world and just friggin die already.

Mr. Rump, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

This response to Nosy is a perfect of example of what has ruined this forum.

[Nick]

Yes we should give a logical response to "why don't you die?" so that people like you can continue to come off with inane hypocritical statements that ignore scientific finding in favour of political points scoring.

[Aardor]

This response to Nosy is a perfect of example of what has ruined this forum.

Well, I was trying to be funny (it's a quote from Billy Madison). What about all the non-serious posts above mine? Only mine ruins the forum?

Oh, not to mention, did you read that? He claims water is a gas. He then speaks about his car breathing carbon dioxide for 2 hours. I'm pretty sure his meaning is that he drives is car for 2 hours, which emits CO2, while we breath all the time, also emitting CO2. If this is the case, I believe he is making a serious error in assuming a running car (idling to accelerating) release the same amount of CO2 as a human breathing in the same amount of time. If he meant that his car releases the equivalent of a human being breathing for 2 hours, I would like to know where he obtained this information, and for how long he runs his car each day.
Furthermore, his posts fails to address the fact that global warming is not just due to CO2 emissions but other causes, such as deforestation.

Anyway, I don't think he himself was being entirely serious, but I could be wrong. I think he was trying to lighten the mood, and so I figured I would respond with a pretty well known movie quote.

So Midnyte, fuck off and actually contribute something useful to this message board.

[Acies]

Look, I see people saying global 'climate change' is manmade here, and others who do not believe this is the case. So, let us do the very simple math:

1) Assuming that we are having no impact on a global scale, and we spend money that our government would otherwise use to fund some bullshit war in bumfuck nowhere, whilest telling me some people want to kill me and everyone like me when I do not even know them using weapons they do not have. A waste of money, but instead we use it to save people instead of kill them.
2) Assuming that we are having no impact on a global scale, and we do nothing, then great.
3) Assuming that we are having an impact on a global scale, and we spend money to prevent it, then hey, we get to live longer. Yay us.
4) Assuming that we are having an impact on a global scale, and we do nothing, we fucking DIE.

Now, I am assuming that everyone here can pick out the worst option.

[Funkmasterr]

Look, I see people saying global 'climate change' is manmade here, and others who do not believe this is the case. So, let us do the very simple math:

1) Assuming that we are having no impact on a global scale, and we spend money that our government would otherwise use to fund some bullshit war in bumfuck nowhere, whilest telling me some people want to kill me and everyone like me when I do not even know them using weapons they do not have. A waste of money, but instead we use it to save people instead of kill them.
2) Assuming that we are having no impact on a global scale, and we do nothing, then great.
3) Assuming that we are having an impact on a global scale, and we spend money to prevent it, then hey, we get to live longer. Yay us.
4) Assuming that we are having an impact on a global scale, and we do nothing, we fucking DIE.

Now, I am assuming that everyone here can pick out the worst option.

You didn't really expect this post to spark any debate did you? I have to believe not when your number 1) was an opinion that the people who do not agree with the global warming thing also don't agree with, not to mention you presented it in an oversimplified and ignorant manner.

This subject needs to die. Animale and team GBCC (global climate change) are firmly planted in their opinions, and the few who disagree are as well. The conversation (which has been presented in a different manner 100 times in the past week) always ends up in cock jousting, and really even if animale and IPCC are right, neither animale nor anyone else here is in any position to present any kind of a real solution to the "problem" so what's the point? For a bunch of people who agree to pat each other on the back? Pretty sad if so, but somehow I don't doubt it.

[Fash]

This subject is not going to die. (The global warming hoax will, eventually)


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 63dc2d02cb

Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks Conventional Wisdom

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

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even the some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.

In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.” (LINK)

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

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

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

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists recently sent an open letter to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

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

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

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

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

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some brief highlights of the more than report featuring over 400 international scientists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

FULL SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Skeptical Scientists Serve as ‘Consensus Busters’ in 2007:

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."


LINK TO FULL SENATE REPORT SHOULD BE POSTED BY 11AM ET TODAY

I'll start a new thread when the full report comes out... this is going to be too good to pass up.

I'm going to wipe my ass with the IPCC report.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Fash,

Did you even read the IPCC report? I mean come on man. Obviously all 400 of these scientists are nutjobs who didn't read the new bible by the IPCC.

[Funkmasterr]

This subject is not going to die. (The global warming hoax will, eventually)


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 63dc2d02cb

Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks Conventional Wisdom

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

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even the some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.

In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.” (LINK)

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

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

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

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists recently sent an open letter to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

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

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

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

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

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some brief highlights of the more than report featuring over 400 international scientists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

FULL SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Skeptical Scientists Serve as ‘Consensus Busters’ in 2007:

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."


LINK TO FULL SENATE REPORT SHOULD BE POSTED BY 11AM ET TODAY

I'll start a new thread when the full report comes out... this is going to be too good to pass up.

I'm going to wipe my ass with the IPCC report.

So the only question I have is: How exactly is some brain washed idiot going to try and refute this today? Sounds like a whole lot more scientists in the IPCC disagree with the report than agree with it.. weird, maybe I'm not just a paranoid delusional idiot after all... Nah nevermind, I'm sure the professionals here on VV can explain exactly why they are more informed and intelligent than 400+ renowned scientists..

I second the ass wiping with the IPCC report.. I just gotta find some soft paper to print it on.

[Animale]

IPCC Summary =/= IPCC report

The summary does have flaws, primarily because it is a policy document prepared for politicians and reporters that describes the rest of the report in more readable terms. Of course fewer people were involved in writing the summary than were involved in writing the actual report chapters... again - that's a strawman argument that has no basis in the reality of the situation so people can say "ONLY 52 people wrote the reports!!!!!" which is - overall- patently false. Hell, I don't agree with everything in the report - although for myself I think they are a bit too conservative with the data and present a LESS bleak picture than it really is in terms of CO2 emissions (they utilize very conservative population growth estimates, and very generous "carbon neutral energy" estimates in their business as usual projections).

Now, again, the question is will our continued release of CO2 into the atmosphere on levels unprecedented in human history dramatically change the climate of our planet? (a large majority of the models say it is doing so) Do we really want to test the hypothesis of climate change in real time? I don't, since it is still an avoidable issue if we start now.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. Scientists are the same way. Again, 400 "skeptics" (some of which, if you read their quotes, have mainly an issue with the media's hyping of the story - not the science or it's conclusions) do not really hold a candle to the number of scientists who were involved in writing the actual reports (you know, the scientific basis sections). Also, in the chemist community I know quite a few people who, just looking at the numbers in a very basic way, have been alarmed about anthropogenic CO2 for a number of years but who were not among the IPPC report's authors (Prof. Nathan Lewis - CalTech and Prof. Daniel Nocera - MIT being two of the primary movers among chemists).

Listen, this is something I'd love for everybody to be wrong about. But, hoping and wishing do not make bad things go away.

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And the backtracking begins. Now you come off reasonable? Why couldn't you be so logical and open minded before? You make me ill.

[Funkmasterr]

IPCC Summary =/= IPCC report

The summary does have flaws, primarily because it is a policy document prepared for politicians and reporters that describes the rest of the report in more readable terms. Of course fewer people were involved in writing the summary than were involved in writing the actual report chapters... again - that's a strawman argument that has no basis in the reality of the situation so people can say "ONLY 52 people wrote the reports!!!!!" which is - overall- patently false. Hell, I don't agree with everything in the report - although for myself I think they are a bit too conservative with the data and present a LESS bleak picture than it really is in terms of CO2 emissions (they utilize very conservative population growth estimates, and very generous "carbon neutral energy" estimates in their business as usual projections).

Now, again, the question is will our continued release of CO2 into the atmosphere on levels unprecedented in human history dramatically change the climate of our planet? (a large majority of the models say it is doing so) Do we really want to test the hypothesis of climate change in real time? I don't, since it is still an avoidable issue if we start now.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. Scientists are the same way. Again, 400 "skeptics" (some of which, if you read their quotes, have mainly an issue with the media's hyping of the story - not the science or it's conclusions) do not really hold a candle to the number of scientists who were involved in writing the actual reports (you know, the scientific basis sections). Also, in the chemist community I know quite a few people who, just looking at the numbers in a very basic way, have been alarmed about anthropogenic CO2 for a number of years but who were not among the IPPC report's authors (Prof. Nathan Lewis - CalTech and Prof. Daniel Nocera - MIT being two of the primary movers among chemists).

Listen, this is something I'd love for everybody to be wrong about. But, hoping and wishing do not make bad things go away.

Animale

You are wrong dude, just admit it, you are starting to sound like a broken record. There were very few of the quotes that were just disagreeing with the spin the media is putting on it, there were not far more involved that agreed than disagreed.. Where is your proof against this, there really is no disputing the article fash posted, the report you are clenching so tightly onto is complete and utter bullshit, and like you have pointed out previously - you are in no place to challenge a single one of the 400 scientists mentioned in this article, even if you think you are.

[Fash]

IPCC Summary =/= IPCC report

The summary does have flaws, primarily because it is a policy document prepared for politicians and reporters that describes the rest of the report in more readable terms. Of course fewer people were involved in writing the summary than were involved in writing the actual report chapters... again - that's a strawman argument that has no basis in the reality of the situation so people can say "ONLY 52 people wrote the reports!!!!!" which is - overall- patently false. Hell, I don't agree with everything in the report - although for myself I think they are a bit too conservative with the data and present a LESS bleak picture than it really is in terms of CO2 emissions (they utilize very conservative population growth estimates, and very generous "carbon neutral energy" estimates in their business as usual projections).

Now, again, the question is will our continued release of CO2 into the atmosphere on levels unprecedented in human history dramatically change the climate of our planet? (a large majority of the models say it is doing so) Do we really want to test the hypothesis of climate change in real time? I don't, since it is still an avoidable issue if we start now.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. Scientists are the same way. Again, 400 "skeptics" (some of which, if you read their quotes, have mainly an issue with the media's hyping of the story - not the science or it's conclusions) do not really hold a candle to the number of scientists who were involved in writing the actual reports (you know, the scientific basis sections). Also, in the chemist community I know quite a few people who, just looking at the numbers in a very basic way, have been alarmed about anthropogenic CO2 for a number of years but who were not among the IPPC report's authors (Prof. Nathan Lewis - CalTech and Prof. Daniel Nocera - MIT being two of the primary movers among chemists).

Listen, this is something I'd love for everybody to be wrong about. But, hoping and wishing do not make bad things go away.

Animale

Hey I got one question for you. What good is a global tax on carbon emissions (and the associated bureaucracy and enforcement that will go along with it) going to do for this issue?

[laneela]

We've only had 2 days of semi-cold weather in Miami. By this time most years, we've had at least 6.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

IPCC Summary =/= IPCC report

The summary does have flaws, primarily because it is a policy document prepared for politicians and reporters that describes the rest of the report in more readable terms. Of course fewer people were involved in writing the summary than were involved in writing the actual report chapters... again - that's a strawman argument that has no basis in the reality of the situation so people can say "ONLY 52 people wrote the reports!!!!!" which is - overall- patently false. Hell, I don't agree with everything in the report - although for myself I think they are a bit too conservative with the data and present a LESS bleak picture than it really is in terms of CO2 emissions (they utilize very conservative population growth estimates, and very generous "carbon neutral energy" estimates in their business as usual projections).

Now, again, the question is will our continued release of CO2 into the atmosphere on levels unprecedented in human history dramatically change the climate of our planet? (a large majority of the models say it is doing so) Do we really want to test the hypothesis of climate change in real time? I don't, since it is still an avoidable issue if we start now.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. Scientists are the same way. Again, 400 "skeptics" (some of which, if you read their quotes, have mainly an issue with the media's hyping of the story - not the science or it's conclusions) do not really hold a candle to the number of scientists who were involved in writing the actual reports (you know, the scientific basis sections). Also, in the chemist community I know quite a few people who, just looking at the numbers in a very basic way, have been alarmed about anthropogenic CO2 for a number of years but who were not among the IPPC report's authors (Prof. Nathan Lewis - CalTech and Prof. Daniel Nocera - MIT being two of the primary movers among chemists).

Listen, this is something I'd love for everybody to be wrong about. But, hoping and wishing do not make bad things go away.

Animale

Hey I got one question for you. What good is a global tax on carbon emissions (and the associated bureaucracy and enforcement that will go along with it) going to do for this issue?

Continue to shift wealth?

[Animale]

The proof of my claims lie in the IPCC report itself and the number of scientists who were included in writing the working group technical reports. At LBNL alone, there were ~30 scientists who directly contributed sections of the report. Here's a link to the history of the IPCC in case you want to read it. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary ... ochure.pdf It explains the purpose and makeup of the IPCC.

And no, I am not wrong in my assessment of this. If you want to "flex education peens" I'd guess that I have you beat by a fairly huge margin Funk. If you want to "flex real life edumacation peens," I'd also guess that I'd have you beat there. Quite frankly, I have read more on the issue than you on all sides, the IPCC report, the "articles" posted by folks here, a significant amount of research I did way back in high school (mid 1990's) when I was interested in this issue from a policy standpoint. You are the ignorant one here, not me. And asking if you've read my the basis for my understanding of the issue is not being a broken record - it's asking for honest debate from you. I read your stuff, and even go beyond to the second level of looking what your sources are, I demand the minimal of courtesy returned on this. And, I would venture an opinion that if these scientists were in a room with me we'd have a reasoned discussion on the merits of our arguments, and that they wouldn't dismiss me as "unqualified" to discuss things with them. You, on the other hand...

Fash - As for carbon tax, I really don't think it's a good idea (was one of the things I researched 10+ years ago, didn't think it was a good idea then and don't think it's a good idea now). The only "true" solution to this is a technological one in the area of solar or fusion, or both. Now, if a "cap and trade" scenario can buy us time/money to achieve such solutions (they are not anywhere near frution) by monetizing current technologies (solar panels, etc.) well maybe we have to think about it. But, a straight up carbon tax is, quite frankly, kind of dumb and a misguided reaction to the problem. Others don't think so (including parts of the IPCC) but I disagree <shrug>

Animale

P.S. Mid... FUCK YOU. You contribute nothing to this but "oh, i'm so fucking victimized." Shut up unless you have something meaningful to contribute. You have said nothing but "oh, why do you not listen to me" when you have nothing to say. Say something well reasoned instead of one-lined insults and maybe you won't be so wholeheartedly villainized.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

P.S. Mid... FUCK YOU. You contribute nothing to this but "oh, i'm so fucking victimized." Shut up unless you have something meaningful to contribute. You have said nothing but "oh, why do you not listen to me" when you have nothing to say. Say something well reasoned instead of one-lined insults and maybe you won't be so wholeheartedly villainized.

Yessir! I will work on saying what I have to say in more words. I will write 2-5 paragraph responses saying the same thing I could in a few words. I'll try to use power words too. Maybe I should even try to apply some legal mumbo jumbo. Maybe I then could be like the rest of you awesome folks who say OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS, while saying nothing.

Great advice. Thank you Animale.

I'd write more, but I'm busy studying the bible. By the bible, I mean the IPCC report......errr Summary. I want to make sure I err on the side of caution on this issue. I want to make sure I don't get labeled as a revolutionary by not abiding by this obvious honest and scientific and globally important issue that is not being pushed for the purposes of forced globalization and conformity.

I mean, it's not like you could compare this to how the Bush adminstration used 9/11 to go to war and fill their pockets. It's completely not the same issue here at all. These companies aren't profiting willingly by this whole global warming scare....err I mean, Global Climate Concern. It's not as if General Electric has a larger lobbying budget than all of the oil companies combined. Not at all.

[Animale]

I mean, it's not like you could compare this to how the Bush adminstration used 9/11 to go to war and fill their pockets. It's completely not the same issue here at all. These companies aren't profiting willingly by this whole global warming scare....err I mean, Global Climate Concern. It's not as if General Electric has a larger lobbying budget than all of the oil companies combined. Not at all.

Source?

Edit to add content:

I'm not against people making money, you shouldn't be either. That is what drives our society for better or worse. If you don't want people to make money, then you are a socialist of the highest order. Now, the government needs to monetize things in order for them to occur in the carbon neutral energy realm - they currently cannot compete with oil/coal/gas on a purely market standpoint. Without government help, the private sector would, by in large, not be involved in this except for the rare company with really long term views (Google stands out, but could also add BP and GE to this).

Animale

[Fash]

Fash - As for carbon tax, I really don't think it's a good idea (was one of the things I researched 10+ years ago, didn't think it was a good idea then and don't think it's a good idea now). The only "true" solution to this is a technological one in the area of solar or fusion, or both. Now, if a "cap and trade" scenario can buy us time/money to achieve such solutions (they are not anywhere near frution) by monetizing current technologies (solar panels, etc.) well maybe we have to think about it. But, a straight up carbon tax is, quite frankly, kind of dumb and a misguided reaction to the problem. Others don't think so (including parts of the IPCC) but I disagree <shrug>

I'm heartened that you agree it is misguided and not a good idea. Considering that the carbon tax is basically all they're trying to do right now, do you understand why I despise the whole approach and the IPCC by association?. I have not heard any other plans, they are singularly focused on setting up a global bureaucracy to trade carbon credits. That's it. I'm 1000% opposed and this is the only place I'm able to lash out against it.

I respect you and your credentials, and your desire to do the right thing... We could theoretically even come to an agreement on the data or the models... It's all about what they plan to do, and I think they have it all wrong on the policy level.

Because of that I'm forced to argue against the whole thing, to try and protect against what I see as a catastrophic slippery slope in global governance and retardation.

[Animale]

A carbon tax is not the science side of things, the policy and science sides are really two separate issues. Quite a few folks that I know don't really like then end result policy-wise, but are almost to the point of "well, something has to be done... maybe this is the least of the two evils." I think the alternatives require spending money on research, and for some reason people seem opposed to this even on the UN level. The congress just restored ~1 billion dollars in science funding for things like the Stanford Synchotron Radiation Laboratory that our President wanted to cut from the NSF and DoE budgets, calling them "pork." The beamlines there are at the forefront of characterization materials for addressing the energy issue, and it was almost forced to close down by the President. All this stuff is connected in some way... we need to be spending more money on basic research if we want to solve the energy issue in the foreseeable future.

Animale

Edit to add:
We need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The science part is reasonable and well documented (even if there are disagreements). The policy part has agendas like all policy decisions do - and that part does need further debate. But, we still need to start now on reducing our carbon emissions in some way while we work on more permanent solutions. The thing is that lots of options are still available to us at only small cost - more efficient automobile fleets are a biggie (just passed by Congress and required by California). More R&D in the energy generation sector (they only spend ~0.5% of revenues on R&D, most industries spend ~3-5%, chemical and pharma spend ~5-10% - there is a horrible lack of innovation in the energy generation sector due to their criminally poor R&D spending).

[Sueven]

Yessir! I will work on saying what I have to say in more words. I will write 2-5 paragraph responses saying the same thing I could in a few words. I'll try to use power words too. Maybe I should even try to apply some legal mumbo jumbo. Maybe I then could be like the rest of you awesome folks who say OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS, while saying nothing.

This is revealing. I think Mid is operating under this implicit assumption that everything which everybody says is of equal value, so that (in this context) some right-wing lunatic with a blog balances out the opinion of some scientist who has done serious research into the issue.

Speaking in scientific terms is not simply an attempt to say something in as many words as possible, it's an attempt to use the language appropriate for discussion of a particular subject. The same is generally true of legal language. Obviously it's good to maintain a connection to plain english, but it's more important to speak as precisely and accurately as possible.

It's interesting that Mid seems to think that scientific and legal language is simply "mumbo jumbo." It's also interesting that he apparently is incapable of distinguishing between "legal mumbo jumbo" and scientific mumbo jumbo. As a law student, opening up a scientific study is like staring at sanskrit for me, and I would guess that Animale would probably find it pretty difficult to figure out what the hell is going on in a tax exam. I would suggest that it's not true, as Midnyte claims, that "us awesome folks" use a lot of words while saying nothing. Rather, I think it's true that us awesome folks are using those words to say nothing that Midnyte is capable of comprehending.

On another subject:

I want to make sure I don't get labeled as a revolutionary by not abiding by this obvious honest and scientific and globally important issue that is not being pushed for the purposes of forced globalization and conformity.

they are singularly focused on setting up a global bureaucracy to trade carbon credits.

to try and protect against what I see as a catastrophic slippery slope in global governance

The global-warming-is-a-scam faction has been claiming that there are political and economic motives behind perpetuating a global warming myth. The only ulterior motive that they've actually managed to articulate is a push for global governance.

Of course, this whole thread started with an anti-global warming article published in the Washington Times. The same newspaper that is run by the guy who has publicly stated his desire to transform the United Nations into a world government with him as permanent leader. The same guy who has publicly stated that he intentionally uses his newspaper to achieve that agenda.

If global warming is a scam perpetuated in order to achieve world government, it's a little counterintuitive that a newspaper which attempts to operate as a propaganda mechanism to ENACT world government would push a global-warming-is-a-hoax agenda?

Obviously, this doesn't prove or disprove anything and I wouldn't expect anyone to change their position based on a conflict of belief about motivations between themselves and a media outlet which agrees with them. What it DOES do is say: Perhaps, when you encounter a bit of anti-global warming writing, you ought to actually consider its merits and figure out whether it jibes with your worldview or not, instead of just eagerly embracing anything which reinforces your pre-existing beliefs.

I respect you and your credentials, and your desire to do the right thing... We could theoretically even come to an agreement on the data or the models... It's all about what they plan to do, and I think they have it all wrong on the policy level.

Because of that I'm forced to argue against the whole thing, to try and protect against what I see as a catastrophic slippery slope in global governance and retardation.

With that, I think Fash has officially left the global-warming-is-a-scam camp, and joined the i'm-taking-global-warming-rhetoric-with-a-grain-of-salt camp.

Fash: Your policy views are completely legitimate and very likely right. Argue the policy instead of the science and people will take you seriously! You destroy your own credibility by focusing on the science instead of the policy. I think you'll get a vastly more positive response out of everybody on this board except maybe Funk and Mid if you posted articles and thoughts on climate change related policy than if you post random lunatic articles disputing scientific findings, especially given that no-one here can even describe the scientific issues in question, let alone dispute them.

[Noysyrump]

This subject is not going to die. (The global warming hoax will, eventually)


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 63dc2d02cb

Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks Conventional Wisdom

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

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even the some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.

In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.” (LINK)

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

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

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

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists recently sent an open letter to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

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

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

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

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

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some brief highlights of the more than report featuring over 400 international scientists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

FULL SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Skeptical Scientists Serve as ‘Consensus Busters’ in 2007:

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."


LINK TO FULL SENATE REPORT SHOULD BE POSTED BY 11AM ET TODAY

I'll start a new thread when the full report comes out... this is going to be too good to pass up.

I'm going to wipe my ass with the IPCC report.

So the only question I have is: How exactly is some brain washed idiot going to try and refute this today? Sounds like a whole lot more scientists in the IPCC disagree with the report than agree with it.. weird, maybe I'm not just a paranoid delusional idiot after all... Nah nevermind, I'm sure the professionals here on VV can explain exactly why they are more informed and intelligent than 400+ renowned scientists..

I second the ass wiping with the IPCC report.. I just gotta find some soft paper to print it on.

I really hate really long quotes.

[Fash]

We need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The science part is reasonable and well documented (even if there are disagreements). The policy part has agendas like all policy decisions do - and that part does need further debate. But, we still need to start now on reducing our carbon emissions in some way while we work on more permanent solutions. The thing is that lots of options are still available to us at only small cost - more efficient automobile fleets are a biggie (just passed by Congress and required by California). More R&D in the energy generation sector (they only spend ~0.5% of revenues on R&D, most industries spend ~3-5%, chemical and pharma spend ~5-10% - there is a horrible lack of innovation in the energy generation sector due to their criminally poor R&D spending).

My issue with it is that as far as I'm concerned, the baby is 98% healthy, and the bathwater has AIDS.

We're looking at a infinitesimally small data sample and projecting a trend... but the proposed solutions to that alleged trend and alleged consequences could be far more detrimental to humanity, in my opinion.

Fash: Your policy views are completely legitimate and very likely right. Argue the policy instead of the science and people will take you seriously! You destroy your own credibility by focusing on the science instead of the policy. I think you'll get a vastly more positive response out of everybody on this board except maybe Funk and Mid if you posted articles and thoughts on climate change related policy than if you post random lunatic articles disputing scientific findings, especially given that no-one here can even describe the scientific issues in question, let alone dispute them.

I will try in the future to fight more against the policy as opposed to the data... I know you understand, however, that they aren't really separable. The institutions perpetuating the 'crisis' are proposing a poor solution, and I don't hear of any other avenues from people who have any power. If I'm that much against their 'solution', I don't have much choice but to argue against the 'crisis'.