PDA

View Full Version : The Science of Gore's Nobel



Wild Cobra
12-05-2007, 11:57 PM
More Global Warming stuff. Like I said before, people are making big money on the subject.Al Gore is even invested in companies that sell Carbon Credits. Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

The Science of Gore's Nobel

What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?

BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.

The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/?id=110010947)

ChumpDumper
12-06-2007, 04:29 AM
So you like pollution?

George Gervin's Afro
12-06-2007, 09:47 AM
More Global Warming stuff. Like I said before, people are making big money on the subject.Al Gore is even invested in companies that sell Carbon Credits. Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

The Science of Gore's Nobel

What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?

BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.

The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/?id=110010947)



:sleep

clambake
12-06-2007, 11:21 AM
if gore were gay, then WC would have a hard on for him.

George Gervin's Afro
12-06-2007, 11:28 AM
if gore were gay, then WC would have a hard on for him.


Well Gore does fly on a private jet... which disqualifies him from ever talking about the environment again....

Clandestino
12-06-2007, 11:32 AM
and the huge suvs he rides in...

xrayzebra
12-06-2007, 11:49 AM
Gore, isn't he the guy who invented the inter-net? What a guy!

Clandestino
12-06-2007, 12:03 PM
http://quest.cjonline.com/images/121100/gotr.jpg

clambake
12-06-2007, 12:04 PM
you can ride in an suv if you wear a green tie.

101A
12-06-2007, 12:22 PM
The guy asks a salient question.

Where IS all the science which supports man-made global warming? If there's millions of scientists, all in consensus, there MUST be millions of peer-reviewed publications with irrefutable evidence.

Does someone have a link?

SRJ
12-06-2007, 04:51 PM
The guy asks a salient question.

Where IS all the science which supports man-made global warming? If there's millions of scientists, all in consensus, there MUST be millions of peer-reviewed publications with irrefutable evidence.

Does someone have a link?

Blasphemer.

There IS a consensus, we ARE killing the planet, and those alleged scientists with their so-called research saying otherwise should have all of their ill-gotten credentials from phoney-baloney schools revoked. Skepticism has no place in the Halls of Science.

We must act quickly, while our mother Gaia still clings to life.

Nbadan
12-06-2007, 05:46 PM
So what are Scientists saying?

Scientists beg for climate action
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science WriterWed Dec 5, 6:47 PM ET


For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."

A petition from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It is directed at a conference of diplomats meeting in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate the next global warming treaty. The petition, obtained by The Associated Press, is to be announced at a press conference there Wednesday night.

The appeal from scientists follows a petition last week from more than 150 global business leaders also demanding the 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases. That is the estimate that scientists calculate would hold future global warming to a little more than a 3-degree Fahrenheit increase and is in line with what the European Union has adopted.

In the past, many of these scientists have avoided calls for action, leaving that to environmental advocacy groups. That dispassionate stance was taken during the release this year of four separate reports by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But no more.

"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said petition signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."

The unprecedented petition includes scientists from more than 25 countries and shows that "the climate science community is essentially fed up," said signer Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada. It includes many co-authors of the intergovernmental climate change panel reports, directors of major American and European climate science research institutions, a Nobel winner for atmospheric chemistry and a winner of a MacArthur "genius" award.

"A lot of us scientists think the problem needs a lot more serious attention than it's getting and the remedies have to be a lot more radical," said Richard Seager, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

The organizers of the petition — two Australians, two Germans and an American — would not comment about their efforts before their 11 p.m. EST press conference. But several scientists who signed on talked of losing patience.

"Action needs to be taken and needs to be taken now," said Marika Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who signed on. "The longer we wait, the worse it's going to become."

Negotiators in Bali are working on the initial groundwork for a treaty that would take effect after 2012, the expiration date of the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treat the United States didn't sign. However, no on expects concrete results at the closed-door sessions.

NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, who signed the petition, said "the time for half-measures and the time for voluntary agreements and the time for arguing about 1 percent here and 1 percent there — those things are no longer relevant."

Schmidt noted while scientists have been dismissed by some as unrealistic, the call for a 50 percent emissions cut by business leaders "helps give credence to the idea that it's achievable."

Policy analysts, who weren't part of either petition, split on how meaningful the two petitions are.

What's happening is people are agreeing "that the cost of inaction is on the high side and the cost of action is affordable," said Joseph Romm, a policy analyst at the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress, energy business consultant and trained physicist.

But Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute said "scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change." Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits, he said.

Granger Morgan, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, said he sees "a growing realization among a wide variety of players that we've got to stop talking about this and start some action." But, he added, "I'm not going to hold my breath that we're going to get anything."

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_sc/climate_scientists&printer=1)

See. there is a price tag on your well-being...

scott
12-06-2007, 06:49 PM
But Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute said "scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change." Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits, he said.

Most of this is an accurate statement. The optimal amount of any externality is not ZERO, it is the level at which the marginal costs are equal to the marginal benefits. Reducing pollution to zero would mean we all go to living in mud-huts. A worthy sacrifice?

Right now, the costs of cutting emissions do outweigh the benefits, but that can and will change with continued technological progress and effective public policy (more efficient application of tradable emissions credits, for example, would be a great start).

violentkitten
12-06-2007, 06:51 PM
it seemed more disturbing in the original red.

Wild Cobra
12-06-2007, 11:05 PM
What really kills me about the "scientific consensus" is just that. They are scientists. How many of them are climatologists?

Would you have a civil engineer state a stance that requires an electronic engineer’s opinion?

FromWayDowntown
12-07-2007, 12:12 AM
What really kills me about the "scientific consensus" is just that. They are scientists. How many of them are climatologists?

Would you have a civil engineer state a stance that requires an electronic engineer’s opinion?

Are climatologists not scientists?

travis2
12-07-2007, 09:10 AM
Define "climatologist".

Specifically, I mean. What is the degree (or degrees) in. What was the degree plan? Describe the sub-specialties, if any. What areas of research, in what fields?

The term "climatologist" is meaningless to me.

Mr. Dictionary
12-07-2007, 10:17 AM
Define "climatologist".

Specifically, I mean. What is the degree (or degrees) in. What was the degree plan? Describe the sub-specialties, if any. What areas of research, in what fields?

The term "climatologist" is meaningless to me.


cli·ma·tol·o·gy
–noun
the science that deals with the phenomena of climates or climatic conditions.
[Origin: 1835–45; climate + -o- + -logy]

—Related forms
cli·ma·to·log·ic /ˌklaɪmətlˈɒdʒɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klahy-muh-tl-oj-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, cli·ma·to·log·i·cal, adjective
cli·ma·to·log·i·cal·ly, adverb
cli·ma·tol·o·gist, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
cli·ma·tol·o·gy (klī'mə-tŏl'ə-jē) Pronunciation Key
n. The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.

cli'ma·to·log'ic (-mə-tl-ŏj'ĭk), cli'ma·to·log'i·cal (-ĭ-kəl) adj., cli'ma·to·log'i·cal·ly adv., cli'ma·tol'o·gist n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
climatologist

noun
someone who is expert in climatology

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

travis2
12-07-2007, 10:18 AM
:rolleyes

travis2
12-07-2007, 10:23 AM
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/MIT-Harvard-climate-courses.html
http://www.geology.yale.edu/research/atmocean/

You have two examples. Are you advancing the idea that anyone who calls themselves (or is called by someone else) a "climatologist" has in fact studied in one of these programs?

travis2
12-07-2007, 10:52 AM
listen dicksucker, take your self-importance elsewhere. Considering I don't think you've ever seen the inside of a college, based on your prior posts, much less a science classroom, you can take your little judgements and shove them up your rather large and worn-out ass.

I am quite sure I have had sufficient math and science in my life to be able to evaluate studies, thank you very much.

Obviously, you do not have the intelligence or experience to know that the term "climatologist" is a generic, meaningless, catch-all term.

But thank you for playing.

xrayzebra
12-07-2007, 11:22 AM
Okay, want to really know what havoc global warming has
caused. Just click on the link below. Over 600+ links to
everything under the sun (another cause for global warming, more
than likely the only cause) that was caused by global warming.


The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

Wild Cobra
12-07-2007, 11:17 PM
Are climatologists not scientists?
Yes, but not all scientists are climatologists!

Like the square and the rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but only rectangles with four equal sides are square.

Nbadan
12-11-2007, 04:40 PM
Nasa images show climate change from space


pslcQXWQz3k

On June 11, 2007 the cameras on the AIM satellite returned some of the first data documenting noctilucent clouds over the Arctic regions of Europe and North America
Footage of cloud patterns from space can measure temperature changes


Clouds on the outer edge of the Earth’s atmosphere are operating as an “exquisite” temperature gauge monitoring climate change.

Images from a Nasa mission into space have shown for the first time that noctilucent clouds, which are only created at certain temperatures, appear to be increasing in frequency and extent.

The "night-shining" clouds can be viewed from Earth, but the new satellite images show a global overview of the clouds enabling scientists to measure them.

Build-up of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere may be responsible for the cloud changes, scientists said.

Increased carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere and makes it easier for ice crystals to form the "polar mesospheric" clouds.

"The clouds are an exquisite thermometer," said Scott Bailey, from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

"The magnitude of the temperature changes is only about five degrees Fahrenheit (3C). So, a very small change in temperature leads to a dramatic change in cloud behaviour. We conclude from that that these clouds are a very sensitive measure of temperature change."

Nasa's Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) project was launched in April to study the clouds, made of ice crystals formed around dust particles more than 50 miles above Earth's surface. Sitting 600km above the Earth, the spacecraft is able to build a global picture of the clouds.

"It won't affect people, but we're causing the outer part of the atmosphere to change, which means we are changing the entire atmosphere, which is important to know," said James Russell III, from Hampton University in Virginia.

Dr Russell told the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting on Monday that AIM's three instruments had given a completely new perspective on the clouds.

"We'd never seen a picture of the whole polar region before, to see these clouds on a daily basis. That in itself is a revelation - it shows how variable they are from day to day, from orbit to orbit," he added.

Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3037134.ece?print=yes&randnum=1197408215093)

BonnerDynasty
12-11-2007, 06:59 PM
The award is a joke. Look at all who have won it within the last 15 years. Jimmy Cater, Yasser Arafat, the list goes on lmfao.

Nothing more needs to be said.

I hope the world IS ending so it can wipe out all of these greenfreaks.

BonnerDynasty
12-11-2007, 07:07 PM
Gore rides some public bus to the award ceremony, then has his luggage taken by a Mercedes Limousine for fucks sake. Not to mention his jet, his house, his stocks.

Keep eating it up green sheeple.

BradLohaus
12-11-2007, 07:09 PM
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

balli
12-11-2007, 08:00 PM
Here's always been my question for the kooks that don't believe in warming. So, maybe one of you could answer it for me.

If pollution doesn't cause warming, what does happen to all the smoke we release into the air? What does it do? I mean do you reject the idea that the Planet Earth is a closed system, thus the pollution just bounces out to space?

If not, do you think all that smoke and pollution is just chilling out in the atmosphere, not causing any harm? Do you think a layer of pollution and co2 has no effect on light particles whatsoever?

I mean, matter cannot disappear. It has to go somewhere and it has to do something. So if it isn't causing warming, what is pollution doing? Nothing? Do you think pollution is the only form of matter capable of disappearing from existence? Do you even believe pollution and smoke exist to begin with?

Wild Cobra
12-12-2007, 12:45 AM
Here's always been my question for the kooks that don't believe in warming. So, maybe one of you could answer it for me.

We are not kooks, and we believe there is insignificant anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming. We acknowledge there is a warming trend, but consider it a natural cycle of the earth.



If pollution doesn't cause warming, what does happen to all the smoke we release into the air? What does it do? I mean do you reject the idea that the Planet Earth is a closed system, thus the pollution just bounces out to space?

Pollution has both positive and negative feedbacks depending on the type of pollution and height.

Pollution generally gets cleansed out of the atmosphere with rain. It appears you jump to conclusions. Those of us believeing we puny humans are not the cause of warming do understand the closed system as well, or better than those who believe in man-made warming. I say that because it really takes a great deal of learning to see through the propaganda.



If not, do you think all that smoke and pollution is just chilling out in the atmosphere, not causing any harm? Do you think a layer of pollution and CO2 has no effect on light particles whatsoever?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not as dramatic as the alarmists make out:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/ppmCO2.jpg

It's not as simple as smoke and pollution. There are different types, and the USA leads the world in pollution control technology. The primary concern we face is the demonization of CO2.



I mean, matter cannot disappear. It has to go somewhere and it has to do something. So if it isn't causing warming, what is pollution doing? Nothing? Do you think pollution is the only form of matter capable of disappearing from existence? Do you even believe pollution and smoke exist to begin with?

Talk to China about pollution. In the USA, we have very little industries polluting compared to before about 1974.

Pollution does have a negative effect. In fact, black carbon (soot) from China is making it's way within the Arctic Circle. It falls on the ice, and then traps heat that would normally be reflected. This is why the northern ice is melting, not from global warming. This however does cause warming. The ice, normally reflecting about 90% of the sun, now melted, gets absorbed by the ocean!

A real good speaker found on the subject by Yoni:

FOLkze-9GcI

Want more info, look at some past threads dealing with Global Warming:

Damn Climate Change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)

"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916)

I am one that believe the primary driver of global warming is the sun. Carbon 14 is the perfect proxy for it, and tracks well with the temperature:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Carbon14-sunspot.svg/800px-Carbon14-sunspot.svg.png

There is also cooling primarily by volcanic eruptions:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

LaMarcus Bryant
12-12-2007, 01:21 AM
The award is a joke. Look at all who have won it within the last 15 years. Jimmy Cater, Yasser Arafat, the list goes on lmfao.

Nothing more needs to be said.

I hope the world IS ending so it can wipe out all of these greenfreaks.

:lmao
I forgot about that one

Nbadan
12-12-2007, 03:48 AM
'The canary has died'


Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally warned that "at this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22203980)

xrayzebra
12-14-2007, 09:18 AM
Don't you just love it when a hypocrite like Gore gets up in
front of a bunch of foreign people and trashes his own government.
Especially since it during Clintons and his administration that
the Kyoto accords were rejected. What a guy.


Financial Times FT.com
FT.com logo



Gore hits at US over climate change

By John Aglionby in Nusa Dua, Bali and agencies

Published: December 13 2007 13:35 | Last updated: December 13 2007 14:52

Al Gore savaged the US government’s “obstructing” attitude and urged delegates at the UN conference on climate change to ignore Washington if necessary to pursue the “moral imperative” of a new global regime.

“My country is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali,” the former US vice-president told 2,000 of the 12,000 people attending the conference on Thursday. “[But] over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now.”

The Bali meeting is trying to reach an agreement to start negotiations that will culminate in 2009 with a new global deal to tackle climate change. The US is due to elect a new president in November 2008 and the majority of the frontrunners have a more proactive attitude to climate change than the Bush administration.

European Union nations said they might boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington compromises to achieve a deal on Bali.

‘‘No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting,’’ said Sigmar Gabriel, top EU environment official from Germany, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September. ‘‘This is the clear position of the EU. I do not know what we should talk about if there is no target.’’

The US invited 16 other major economies, including European countries, Japan, China and India, to discuss a program of what are expected to be nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Gore, fresh from receiving the Nobel peace prize jointly with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said delegates must “find the grace to navigate around this enormous obstacle, the elephant in the room that I have been undiplomatic enough to name.”

The US delegation in Bali has repeatedly said it is committed to finding a consensus and reaching a deal but numerous countries have accused it, as well as Japan, Canada and Saudi Arabia, of blocking progress.

A substantial part of Mr’s Gore’s hour-long address was a recap of material he has used on numerous occasions since making An Inconvenient Truth, his Oscar-winning film, in 2006. He described how scientists are warning of a rapidly escalating crisis unless greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced.

He sought to inspire the audience by telling them they had the privilege of being some of the few people in the world who can make a difference in saving “the world’s civilisation”.

“The way ahead from Bali is difficult,” he said. “The truth is that is the maximum now considered possible even here in this conference is still far short of the minimum that will really solve this process. So we have to expand the limits of what’s possible. We must have the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as the symbol of global civilisation.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007.

Link (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0dd147ec-a97e-11dc-aa8b-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)

Holt's Cat
12-14-2007, 09:43 AM
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally warned that "at this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

2012? If so then it's over and we're all gonna die.

Mr. Peabody
12-14-2007, 11:38 AM
2012? If so then it's over and we're all gonna die.

Doesn't the Mayan calendar end in 2012? Coincidence, I think not.... :dramaquee :( :dramaquee

101A
12-14-2007, 11:56 AM
rofl rofl

if you don't even know where to FIND scientific studies, how can you pretend to critique them?

go to ISI web of science -- that's a database with all sorts of studies, but it requires a subscription (i typed in "climate change" and got ~25,000 studies, fyi)

or you can go to the free pubmed.org, and look up health studies related to climate change

rofl rofl "does someone have a link?" rofl roflBoth C&EN (Chemical and Engineering News - if you don't know) & Science are delivered to my house weekly, how about yours? There have been several published papers over the past several years in those peer reviewed, well-respected journals. None are conclusive, NONE of them have the tenor, or attitude of the 200 "Climatologists" that are demanding action now (or you). Not one has stated that man-made global warming is occuring, or that that is even LIKELY occurring.

101A
12-14-2007, 11:57 AM
Doesn't the Mayan calendar end in 2012? Coincidence, I think not.... :dramaquee :( :dramaqueeI thought it was the Aztek's. Could be wrong, though.

balli
12-14-2007, 11:58 AM
2012? If so then it's over and we're all gonna die.

Well at least. Every. Single. Polar bear in the wild.

Me, I'm a survivor. Toilet paper and guns, baby, toilet paper and guns.

And it is the Mayans.

xrayzebra
12-14-2007, 01:34 PM
And here you have it. Gore the savior. Holy smokes I cant
believe someone wrote this crap.

Newsweek

Why Isn’t Gore Running?

The White House is the place to battle global warming.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:54 PM ET Dec 13, 2007

There he was again on the world stage--in Oslo this time--celebrating his Nobel Peace Prize with singer Melissa Etheridge and actress Uma Thurman, the Hollywood hottie who called him "adorable" and said listening to him talk was "like watching a beautiful racehorse run." But Al Gore isn't running. Which raises the question: maybe Gore's gotten a little too adorable--too comfortable in his role as a globe-trotting guru. What about his own damn country? Why isn't Al Gore--Nobel laureate and enviro rock star, embodiment of the alternative history that never was, winner of the largest popular-vote total in U.S. presidential history--seeking the job that many people still think should have been his in 2000? Yes, we've all heard that Gore's reached a kind of peace within himself, and what fire that is left in his belly is guttering out. But shouldn't this Hamlet of the Hustings be tormented with a little of the melancholy Dane's anguished ambition, telling himself: "The time is out of joint; O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right?"

Gore is obviously not without ambition to set things right: he appears to want to save the entire planet single-handedly. "Without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself," he said in his Nobel acceptance speech. "It is time to make peace with the planet." After receiving his prize, Gore flew onto Bali, where the U.S. government this week succeeded in single-handedly blocking a proposal that called on industrialized nations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020. The Bush administration's lonely stand at the two-week-long meeting of nearly 190 nations--convened to start talks on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012--came even as new NASA satellite data showed a frightening acceleration in the melting of the Arctic. "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," Gore declared as the Bali negotiations bogged down. And that comes after 10 years of limbo for Kyoto, thanks in large part to the Bush administration. Even Australia, whose zealously pro-Bush prime minister, John Howard, was defeated recently in part because of his opposition to Kyoto, has now signed the protocol. That leaves the United States as the only developed nation that has not joined the agreement.

Gore's passion and prescience on global warming are admirable. But let's get real: without a U.S. president who's fully behind an emission-reduction program, it's simply not going to happen. That's the lesson of Bali. America is still the only superpower, and there is no replacement on the horizon. The way to really save the planet is to move into the Oval Office. And a presidential race that only a short time ago some pundits were calling a Clinton coronation now seems wide open again. But Al Gore conveys no sense whatsoever that he's the man to set things right in Washington. He's already missed many of the filing deadlines for the primaries, discouraging the various Draft Gore campaigns from gathering signatures (undeterred, some have launched write-in campaigns). And Super Tuesday is less than two months away. "Please trust me to make good decisions about where I can do the most good," Gore told his supporters recently. "And don't automatically assume that running for president again is the right thing for me to do."

He's obviously still open to suggestion. I asked Donna Brazile, his campaign manager from 2000, whether there's any way Gore could still become president. "America might decide to turn to a 'recovering politician' in 2008, and Al Gore is ready to lead day one. I'm still a dreamer," she said by e-mail today. Gore, interviewed by CNN in Oslo, said cautiously that "I haven't ruled out the idea of getting back into the political process at some point in the future. I don't expect to. But if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president, not in any other position." That's not much of a promise, but it's marginally more ambitious than what he said when he announced on Dec. 15, 2002 that he wouldn't run in 2004. "I made the decision in the full awareness that that probably means I will never have another opportunity to run for president, and I'm at peace with that," he said back then.

Well, Al, I'm glad you're at peace, but your planet and your country aren't. If you believe that instead of the "nuclear winter" that you and other politicians worked to avoid during the cold war we now face a "carbon summer," as you put it in your Nobel speech, then why the devil are you cavorting around on stage with Hollywood types in Oslo? Gore, we must remember, originally took himself out of what many Americans believed should have been his rightful rematch with George W. Bush when the former veep announced at the height of Bush's popularity that he wouldn't run again. Gore has had cause to regret that, obviously. Well, now there is a similar window of opportunity. Hillary Clinton's inevitability engine is stalled; the Democratic mantle seems up for grabs (at least between Hillary and Barack Obama). There is similar uncertainty on the Republican side, with the obscure Mike Huckabee filling the vacuum for the moment. It's clear that the nation and the world are looking for the right kind of American president.

Why not you, Al? The last time Gore decided not to run, memories of his close race with Bush were still fresh in the minds of unforgiving Dems. "In 2002, there was lot of anger at him within the Democratic Party," says one former adviser. "He could have taken Bush in 2004, but the road to the nomination was not going to be easy. The party really treated him terribly." Now he's got real hero status, having transformed his image from wooden wonk to globo-guy. And while the Dems have several candidates of substance to choose from, serious doubts about electability continue to plague the two front runners. But time is running out fast for Gore."The only way he becomes president now is if there's a catastrophic collapse of the field, and something we haven't seen in ages, a brokered convention," says the former adviser. Better that, perhaps, than a broken environment.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/77828
© 2007 Newsweek.com

ratm1221
12-14-2007, 01:52 PM
Politics and Climate are two different sciences. I'm so tired of this being a political issue.

Thanks,
Mother Nature

Extra Stout
12-14-2007, 02:29 PM
Both C&EN (Chemical and Engineering News - if you don't know) & Science are delivered to my house weekly, how about yours? There have been several published papers over the past several years in those peer reviewed, well-respected journals. None are conclusive, NONE of them have the tenor, or attitude of the 200 "Climatologists" that are demanding action now (or you). Not one has stated that man-made global warming is occuring, or that that is even LIKELY occurring.
Those are not scholarly journals. Those are magazines.

Examples of journals would be:
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113388514/home)
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jas/index.html)
Journal of Climate (http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/index.html)

xrayzebra
12-14-2007, 03:01 PM
Politics and Climate are two different sciences. I'm so tired of this being a political issue.

Thanks,
Mother Nature

You are kidding, right? That is all this is a political issue.
Money. Tax the rich and give it to the poor.....horse hockey!
Now we know where the communist went, they became
earth warmers.

ratm1221
12-14-2007, 03:36 PM
You are kidding, right? That is all this is a political issue.
Money. Tax the rich and give it to the poor.....horse hockey!
Now we know where the communist went, they became
earth warmers.

I'm guessing your parents are republican. I like how people hear what their parents say and regurgitate it like it was their own idea. Just making an observation.

Wild Cobra
12-14-2007, 10:34 PM
Then you have the melting of Greenland's glaciers. Recent studies have found that the earth's crust is thinning in some places, and that is probably melting the ice:

Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice (http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html)

Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm)

xrayzebra
12-15-2007, 10:48 AM
I'm guessing your parents are republican. I like how people hear what their parents say and regurgitate it like it was their own idea. Just making an observation.

That's what you get for guessing.

SouthernFried
12-15-2007, 12:33 PM
Funny how the Ice age ended without hairspray.

Actually, I don't beleive it. They're hiding the fossilized Aquanet cans at Langley, according to my text message from Vince Foster.

spurster
12-16-2007, 12:36 AM
This thread would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

2centsworth
12-16-2007, 12:59 AM
You are kidding, right? That is all this is a political issue.
Money. Tax the rich and give it to the poor.....horse hockey!
Now we know where the communist went, they became
earth warmers.
there's a lot of truth in that.

Nbadan
12-16-2007, 03:16 AM
Here is a couple a good resources for global-climate-change deniers...

Climate change controversies: a simple guide (http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229)

Climate change controversies


The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

* Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
* Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
* Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
* Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
* Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
* Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
* Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
* Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.


and...

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
NewScientist.com news service (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462)

Wild Cobra
12-16-2007, 03:50 PM
To bad those eight statements are misleading in themselves. They fall short of a full explanation, implying the general theory of each is flawed.

Take the CO2 lagging warming, then man adding more CO2. Their statement is true, but once so much CO2 in in the atmosphere, adding more has an insignificant effect. It has been determined that atr 280 ppm (parts per million) the CO2 has a warming effect of about six degree Celsius. It would take 3% (3000 ppm) of CO2 to have a 6.7 degree effect. I choose 3% because that is about as much as we mere mortals can tolerate.

The issue with CO2 shouldn't be global warming, but it's effect on life. Plants thrive, but at some point any oxygen breathing life is compromised. Who knows, maybe that's why the bees are disappearing? As long as the alarmists are going to lie to us, then I say FUCK THEM!

Now consider the statement of the sun. It too falls short of a proper explanation, cherry picking only facts that have little merit. The 11 year cycle has little effect because of the lag times involved. More important are the changes in solar radiation that we don't see. Our best indicator are proxies like Carbon 14. Until the full effect of the sun on C14 production was known, carbon 14 dating was dismissed as inaccurate. It is now known that the higher the suns intensity, the more C14 that is produced. C14 as a proxy shows us that there is a change in solar radiation large enough to account for large temperature variations.

I could probably dismiss the other six statements, but you guys just don't listen to scientific facts. You believe in the religion of global warming.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO2vstemperature2.jpg

Nbadan
12-17-2007, 09:48 AM
For you Objectivist out there....(you know who you are)...

The Shift (http://www.theshiftmovie.com/)

Wild Cobra
12-17-2007, 08:47 PM
For you Objectivist out there....(you know who you are)...

The Shift (http://www.theshiftmovie.com/)
You call that objective?

I think I understand you better now...

possessed
12-19-2007, 12:02 AM
Funny how the Ice age ended without hairspray.

Actually, I don't beleive it. They're hiding the fossilized Aquanet cans at Langley, according to my text message from Vince Foster.
It was the Neanderthal Ice Men driving their SUVs to their jobs at Halliburton!

xrayzebra
12-20-2007, 10:46 AM
This post is quite lenghthly, but very informative. It shows that
there is much doubt on what is causing global warming and the
myth that there is a consensus opinion on manmade causes.



U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
December 20, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - [email protected] - 9:47 AM ET

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

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

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)



# #



Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:


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


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

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



STAY TUNED....
















Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832Link to article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&IsPrint=True)

Nbadan
12-20-2007, 12:54 PM
Damn,..... Boutons....

While the Scientists argue...


JjHlNA2dql4

From January to September of this year. Puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

:hat

violentkitten
12-20-2007, 12:59 PM
we're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!111

xrayzebra
12-20-2007, 02:34 PM
Naw, just boutons and dan. The rest of us are going to stay here
and create some more of that heat.

Nbadan
12-21-2007, 04:55 AM
How It All Ends...a risk assessment...


mF_anaVcCXg

travis2
12-21-2007, 08:49 AM
I see the ST Nazis are still trying to intimidate people...

travis2
12-21-2007, 09:16 AM
A series of articles interviewing and profiling scientists debunking the hysterical claims of the environazis.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0

travis2
12-21-2007, 01:01 PM
Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832Link to article (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&IsPrint=True)

I've been slowly going through the full article...even the full article is a survey. It is extensively sourced, and those sources are positively damning towards the environmental fascists running the global warming pyramid scheme.

Wild Cobra
05-10-2008, 09:39 PM
I wish I had read this before:

A Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/skepticguide.pdf)

Don Quixote
05-10-2008, 10:16 PM
I need to get in on the carbon-credit thing!

So which companies are producing them? And can I just make my own and sell them?

Wild Cobra
05-10-2008, 10:35 PM
I need to get in on the carbon-credit thing!

So which companies are producing them? And can I just make my own and sell them?

I agree. Maybe I should stop trying to convince people this is a sham, and make money on the sham myself!

Yonivore
05-10-2008, 10:52 PM
I need to get in on the carbon-credit thing!

So which companies are producing them? And can I just make my own and sell them?
Yep, plant a tree everytime someone gives you money and they've bought carbon credits. It can be pretty profitable.

Don Quixote
05-10-2008, 11:58 PM
But trees cost $$$. At least they do at a nursery.

Can I just "say" I'm planting a tree? And who will check?

(Disclaimer: I'm not against trees! I love trees. Environmentalists, don't stone me, please.)

Yonivore
05-11-2008, 12:01 AM
But trees cost $$$. At least they do at a nursery.

Can I just "say" I'm planting a tree? And who will check?

(Disclaimer: I'm not against trees! I love trees. Environmentalists, don't stone me, please.)
Well, that's how the Left does it. But, a true capitalist would buy seedlings in bulk, sell the carbon credits at a profit, and plant the damn trees.

Don Quixote
05-11-2008, 12:09 AM
I love trees! Katrina took all of mine except for the satsuma.

But I can acquire seedlings and plant them wherever.

Yonivore
05-11-2008, 12:10 AM
Speaking of Algore's Nobel. Do they ever take those things back?

xrayzebra
05-11-2008, 09:42 AM
Speaking of Algore's Nobel. Do they ever take those things back?

Not his by any means. He would protect it and his shiny
Academy Award with his life. Well actually they kinda mirror
his life. A real joke.

ClingingMars
05-11-2008, 02:00 PM
LIES! GLOBAL WARMING DOES EXIST! DEWD U R STUPID!!!

ZXrc1XZayp4

0cElkco-hDk

".....given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a 'moral' crusade."

--Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT

- Mars

Don Quixote
05-11-2008, 10:30 PM
Ummm ...Venus?

Have you been taken over by a big liberal leach?

Wild Cobra
05-14-2008, 09:36 PM
The propagandists like to point to Venus and it's high percentage of CO2 and tell us the CO2 is why Venus is so hot. Ignorant people to celestial facts then believe the false allegation. The thing about Venus is that it is an aphelion of 108,942,109 km and a perihelion of 107,476,259 km. Earth is farther away with an aphelion of 152,097,701 km and a perihelion of 147,098,074 km. Being so much closer to the earth, it receives so much more solar radiation. Rather than our average 288 Kelvin temperature, Venus has an average of 735 Kelvin. Just less than double the solar radiation, no diffractive upper atmosphere or reflective clouds and ice like we have, and just more than double the temperature. CO2 is not the reason Venus is so much hotter. This is the point the alarmists like to suggest. Venus also has a far denser atmosphere at 92 times the pressure of our Earth. The pressure amplifies the greenhouse effect. So does the lack of clouds and ice. Not that fact the atmosphere is mostly CO2.

Don Quixote
05-14-2008, 10:21 PM
Um ... I was actually playing off of Mars' name. He, like all girls, is actually from Venus.

But, good points about the planet Venus. This global warming hogwash is going to screw a whole bunch of people over. And the GOP is buying it too!