:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
Wait to see where 2008 ends up! or should I say down! Al Gore will have no answer!
Wait to see where 2008 ends up! or should I say down! Al Gore will have no answer!
Last edited:
Golobal Warming!!
- Thread starter toastonastick
- Start date
Agree, this Global warming Crap is built to fill the pockets of LIBERALS. JMHO
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/the_fraud_behind_carbon_credit.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/the_fraud_behind_carbon_credit.html
I would tend to agree but the north pole and artic is melting big time.
I dont think this is a joke or a fraud
I dont think this is a joke or a fraud
Solar Activity and the -PDO will dominate our climate far and above CO2. Temps since 1998 have been steady to slightly falling?
2008 is on track to eliminate all the supposed temp increases from Anthropogenic Global Warming.
2008 is on track to eliminate all the supposed temp increases from Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And if the sun doesnt wake up soon, we very we'll could be in a world of hurt in another Maunder minimum type event.
World Hunger. shortened growing seasons, third world countries will be in real bad shape
World Hunger. shortened growing seasons, third world countries will be in real bad shape
the liberals and their global warming socialist agenda took over nasa long ago. Try to keep up Smurphy.
global warming is bullshit, nothing more than scare tactics by the left to get stupid people to buy green products, ie it is a marketing ploy
................................................................
when the ocean level rises a foot and california goes underwater, then you will believe.
:shrug:
MYTH:
Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial -- they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT:
Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional ?winners? and ?losers? in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950's. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications -- when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
:scared :sadwave:
Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial -- they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT:
Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional ?winners? and ?losers? in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950's. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications -- when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
:scared :sadwave:
on the issue of ice--
ice has been melting since the demise of ice age-
In some areas of world ice has declined and other areas it has increased--funny thing is greenie media by only reporting where it has been decreasing makes their greenies look at only what they want them to see--
Actualy the largest ice mass on earth (East Antarctic Ice Sheet ) has been increasing.
chart-
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Granted the earth has warmed about 1 degree in 20th century--(most coming pre 1960-duh)
--if this is concern there are 2 ways to deal with it.
For the practical person they can simply move 33 miles north of where they live now and negate temp increase of 20th century-
--or take the moonbat approach hysterical route and go as far as wanting to tax cows for farting-
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/farmers-panic-about-a-cow-tax/?partner=rss&emc=rss
--and moonbats are not just confined to the conspiricy sheep--they are reinforced by the liberal media
eg--some of my fav "the sky is falling sources" on bigges lie ever told--"no real scientist dispute global warmimg"
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): ?There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.? (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)
CNN?s Miles O?Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. ?We're done." O?Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming ?are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only ?a handful of skeptics? of man-made climate fears.
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)
ok so much for liberal opinions on no real scientist dispute global warming--
now a few "facts"
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. ?First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!?
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled ?The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.? ?Even if the concentration of ?greenhouse gases? double man would not perceive the temperature impact,? Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. ?There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,? Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, ?I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting ? a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number ? entirely without merit,? Tennekes wrote. ?I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo ? Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. ?The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,? Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Universit? 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 ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!?
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: ?It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.?
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. ?The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. ?I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,? Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: ?The earth will not die.?
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: ?To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.?
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. ?The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,? Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. ?We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.?
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: ?Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ?real? climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.?
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: ?Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: ?The [IPCC] ?Summary for Policymakers? might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.?
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa?s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: ?The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.?
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ?We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming?with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy?is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.?
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.?
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: ?To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.?
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ?Excessively Exaggerated? ? Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan?s and Sun Xian?s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.?
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: ?The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth?s surface will therefore affect climate.?
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute?s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. ?Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.?
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. ?Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.?
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: ?In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.? Wojick added: ?The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.?
# # #
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of ?hundreds? or ?thousands? of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking ?consensus? LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC?s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party?s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--so to say there is no dissent is outright lie.
The key- is result of opinions will without a doubt lead to minimum of 50% rise in cost of energy on consumers and businesses.
We have had wind and solar technologie for decades--only thing that didn't fit the better mousetrap mode- is they can't make it financially cost effective-yet.
--add to fact of huge energy price increase on everyone--considering how tough it is for U.S. comanies to compete with China-India and others because of cost now--then tack on increased energy costs.
--and if believe O and his inflated # of greenie jobs he's going to produce--ask him net increase after he decimates the coal and oil industry.
ice has been melting since the demise of ice age-
In some areas of world ice has declined and other areas it has increased--funny thing is greenie media by only reporting where it has been decreasing makes their greenies look at only what they want them to see--
Actualy the largest ice mass on earth (East Antarctic Ice Sheet ) has been increasing.
chart-
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Granted the earth has warmed about 1 degree in 20th century--(most coming pre 1960-duh)
--if this is concern there are 2 ways to deal with it.
For the practical person they can simply move 33 miles north of where they live now and negate temp increase of 20th century-
--or take the moonbat approach hysterical route and go as far as wanting to tax cows for farting-
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/farmers-panic-about-a-cow-tax/?partner=rss&emc=rss
--and moonbats are not just confined to the conspiricy sheep--they are reinforced by the liberal media
eg--some of my fav "the sky is falling sources" on bigges lie ever told--"no real scientist dispute global warmimg"
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): ?There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.? (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)
CNN?s Miles O?Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. ?We're done." O?Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming ?are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only ?a handful of skeptics? of man-made climate fears.
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)
ok so much for liberal opinions on no real scientist dispute global warming--
now a few "facts"
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. ?First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!?
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled ?The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.? ?Even if the concentration of ?greenhouse gases? double man would not perceive the temperature impact,? Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. ?There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,? Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, ?I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting ? a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number ? entirely without merit,? Tennekes wrote. ?I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo ? Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. ?The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,? Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Universit? 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 ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!?
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: ?It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.?
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. ?The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. ?I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,? Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: ?The earth will not die.?
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: ?To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.?
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. ?The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,? Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. ?We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.?
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: ?Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ?real? climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.?
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: ?Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: ?The [IPCC] ?Summary for Policymakers? might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.?
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa?s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: ?The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.?
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ?We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming?with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy?is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.?
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.?
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: ?To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.?
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ?Excessively Exaggerated? ? Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan?s and Sun Xian?s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.?
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: ?The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth?s surface will therefore affect climate.?
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute?s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. ?Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.?
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. ?Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.?
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: ?In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.? Wojick added: ?The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.?
# # #
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of ?hundreds? or ?thousands? of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking ?consensus? LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC?s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party?s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--so to say there is no dissent is outright lie.
The key- is result of opinions will without a doubt lead to minimum of 50% rise in cost of energy on consumers and businesses.
We have had wind and solar technologie for decades--only thing that didn't fit the better mousetrap mode- is they can't make it financially cost effective-yet.
--add to fact of huge energy price increase on everyone--considering how tough it is for U.S. comanies to compete with China-India and others because of cost now--then tack on increased energy costs.
--and if believe O and his inflated # of greenie jobs he's going to produce--ask him net increase after he decimates the coal and oil industry.
al gore; if not a fraud is an idot... is there global warming ? Maybe; maybe not.... extremist views on anything are not productive.... should we as a country turn towards alternative energy and green ways of do things ? YES... WHY ? because it makes sense....( you don't have to buy and spend money on trendy producuts to go green).... is the world coming to an end ? do we have to make radical changes ? NO & NO.... Is global warming used as a way for some to scam others out of their money ? Yes ..... just look around.... Americans are scammed out of their money every day.... From religion,health care, finance,gambling, education, food, the list is endless..... Why should global warming be any different ? We need to be smart about, what we "BUY", especially what we consume, (eat or drink)..... Think about it.... DO you still believe the #'s ? the fundamentals are strong..... How can you trust anything that is mass produced ? Especially food.... Who's looking out for you ? Take a look around at the health of the average American... I'm not saying that buger king and mc donalds, red lobster, kentucky fried chicken & the rest are killing fields but take a look around. IS THERE GLOBAL WARMING ? Maybe.... Do we have enormous and immediate concerns ? I DO ! Things that DON'T keep me up at night : global warming, to many abortions, to many adoptions, not enough abused children and old people, not enough guns, abolishing gay marriage, to many Americans that vote, to many great public schools, will my peeps in washington get a raise this year, will there be fair justice for rich white collar criminals, will bush/cheney/ & the gang be able to sleep at night, it's endless !
Last edited:
again, just a scare tactic, I will never believe that the reason the earth may be warming is because I drive an SUV
hedge
you need to study up some on fossil fuels
its not just your SUV its millions and millions of stuff going into the atmosphere all around the world.
wake up and smell the coffee
you need to study up some on fossil fuels
its not just your SUV its millions and millions of stuff going into the atmosphere all around the world.
wake up and smell the coffee
