Proof of Global Warming

[Chadman]

Okay, so it's been said there is no factual proof of global warming, let alone climate change. Therefore, I guess, people who say that feel we don't have any reason to give credence to it as a real problem for the people of the U.S., let alone the world. For the sake of argument, here are a couple of reports that are based on groups of scientists from different organizations, backgrounds, fundings, supporters, etc., that have published factual findings based on scientific theories and statistics. We might as well hash this out, eh?

 

[Chadman]

Report: Proof of Global Warming
By Matt Crenson, AP National Writer

Politicians in the nation's capital have been reluctant to set limits on the carbon dioxide pollution that is expected to warm the planet by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century, citing uncertainty about the severity of the threat. But that uncertainty may have shrunk somewhat with the release last week of two scientific reports suggesting that global warming is not just a hypothetical possibility, but a real phenomenon that has already started transforming especially sensitive parts of the globe.

Overall, the reports say, Earth's climate has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. In the Arctic, where a number of processes amplify the warming effects of carbon dioxide, most regions have experienced a temperature rise of 4 to 7 degrees in the last 50 years.

That warmth has reduced the amount of snow that falls every winter, melted away mountain glaciers and shrunk the Arctic Ocean's summer sea ice cover to its smallest extent in millennia, according to satellite measurements. Swaths of Alaskan permafrost are thawing into soggy bogs, and trees are moving northward at the expense of the tundra that rings the Arctic Ocean.

These changes seriously threaten animals such as polar bears, which live and hunt on the sea ice. The bears have already suffered a 15 percent decrease in their number of offspring and a similar decline in weight over the past 25 years. If the Arctic sea ice disappears altogether during the summer months, as some researchers expect it will by the end of the century, polar bears have little chance of survival.

Things are less serious in the lower 48, where the effects of climate change have been more subtle. In much of the United States, spring arrives about two weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago. Tropical bird species have appeared in Florida and along the Gulf Coast. Species such as Edith's checkerspot, a butterfly native to western North America, have started dying out at the southern reaches of their ranges.

"Responses to climate change are being seen across the U.S.A," said Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the University of Texas in Austin. She is the co-author, with Hector Galbraith of the University of Colorado in Boulder, of "Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S." The report was released Tuesday by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a non-partisan but not disinterested research organization dedicated to providing sound scientific information about global warming.

Parmesan and Galbraith acknowledge that nothing in the report would strike the average person as particularly alarming. They also allow that some of the past century's warming might have happened even if humans hadn't been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But they argue that the changes they describe should be taken as a "very clear signal" that climate change will have significant effects in coming decades.

"The canaries in the coalmine are squawking, and we should absolutely take that seriously," Galbraith said.

The Bush administration has argued that not enough is known about climate change to justify major efforts at forestalling or preventing future warming.

The Arctic report, released Monday, was commissioned by the Arctic Council, an international commission of eight countries, including the United States, and six indigenous groups. It was written by a team of 300 scientists.

"The report will be a valuable contribution to the literature on potential regional impacts of climate change, and the United States government will take its findings into account as it continues to review the science," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a statement released Tuesday.

The United States faces a potential showdown with other members of the Arctic Council on Nov. 24, when representatives of the organization's members are scheduled to meet in Iceland to consider climate change policy recommendations.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen from 280 parts per million in 1800 to 380 parts per million today due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide causes warming because it heats up more when exposed to sunlight compared to other atmospheric gases.

Scientists have always expected the Arctic to respond earlier and more intensely than other regions to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thanks to several phenomena that make the far north especially sensitive to climate perturbations. When warmer temperatures melt snow, for example, the bare ground that is exposed absorbs more heat than the white surface did, causing yet more warming. A similar thing happens when sea ice melts, exposing open water.

In the past three Septembers the Arctic sea ice has melted back 12 percent to 15 percent beyond its normal minimum extent.

"It almost suggests that maybe we're about to reach a threshold beyond which the sea ice may not be able to recover," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

Ice in the interior of the Arctic pack normally remains frozen from year to year, growing thicker with each season. But the recent increase in melting has eaten into much of that multi-year ice. So while the Arctic Ocean still freezes over each winter, more of the solid cover now consists of thin single-year ice that melts every spring.

The Arctic is also particularly sensitive to warming because its plants and soil hold less water than more temperate environments. That means more energy reaching the ground is dedicated to heating the surface instead of evaporating water.

The atmosphere is thinner in the Arctic than it is farther south, which also intensifies warming. And while temperate zones shed some of their extra heat by shipping it north in ocean currents and meteorological fronts, the Arctic is the end of the line in that respect.

A small minority of scientists remains unconvinced that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide can be held responsible for the recent warming, arguing that natural variability explains most if not all of the trend.

"It's very complicated and I believe people who claim they understand ... are just overestimating drastically their ability to do science," said Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Scientists aren't the only ones who have noticed the Arctic warming trend. Inuit hunters in Canada and Saami reindeer herders in Finland have detected shifts in the migratory behavior of animals. In some cases, people whose elders taught them decades ago how to forecast storms from wind patterns and cloud formations have lost their predictive abilities to new weather patterns.

"One of the unique things about Arctic communities is how much they're tied to the land, and that's why this is such a big deal for them," said Harvard University geographer Shari Fox Gearheard.

Farther south, where the changes have been far less extreme and most people live far removed from the subtleties of their climate, a warmer world remains a hypothetical realm of scientists and environmentalists. But the latest reports suggest that in some of the world's more populated places, astute observers may soon begin to noticing that the climate is changing.

 

[Chadman]

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.

 

[3 Seconds]

Those that dont believe in global warming are morons.

Its that simple. I cant believe that there are still some neo-cons that say its made up propaganda made up by liberals.

 

[Chadman]

I certainly understand the theories that some of the science, maybe a lot of it, is generated to create opportunity for ongoing science (i.e. dollars, funding). I understand many individuals are using this to make money - or protect exisiting money flows by dismissing it. I also think Gore, to an extent, has made this his legacy issue, and can be looked at negatively for a lot of his antics.

But, the base issue/concern seems sensible from both a scientific, and common-sense perspective, if you examine what man has done since fossil fuel usage and pollution in the air and water became so prevalent. Considering the U.S. is such a comparatively large producer of these things, the fact that we (the administration, right-wingers) are such a staunch opposer of serious examinations of solutions is really embarrassing, in my view.

 

[marine]

Those that dont believe in global warming are morons.

Its that simple. I cant believe that there are still some neo-cons that say its made up propaganda made up by liberals.

not many people do not believe that the earth is in a warming phase right now... what is questioned is what is causing it.

 

[Mahoney]

Those that dont believe in global warming are morons.

Its that simple. I cant believe that there are still some neo-cons that say its made up propaganda made up by liberals.

I can't believe those that can't spell simple contractions call others morons.

It's not that simple at all. The proponents of global warming have vested interests in lying. The scientists want research money; the politicians and the media want to whip up crises that will sell papers and lead to new government solutions that don't solve anything but do employ more bureaucrats.

You can't be too skeptical of politicians. If a guy like Gore had his way, he'd jack you for another federal dollar per gas gallon and you'd probably have to pay an excessive travel fee of $10 every time you crossed a state line.

Leftists falling for the 'global warming' hoax are dupes, just as are the conservatives falling for the 'war on terror.' Both sides hate and mock each other, but they're both wrong and ridiculous and easily manipulated by interested liars.

 

[Mahoney]

What USA Today published about 1996 to 2006 being the warmest decade was widely accepted as factual. Yet three of the five warmest years were not in the last decade at all, they were 73, 86 and 76 years ago. And they were before man-made greenhouse gases could be blamed. And three of the next five hottest years also are a bit early to be blamed on man: 1953, 1938 and 1939.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/08/warming-records-revised-downwards.html

 

[Mahoney]

Polar Bear bs

Polar Bear bs

Polar bear worries unproven, expert says

Last Updated: Monday, May 15, 2006 | 3:44 PM ET
CBC News

Polar bears are becoming the poster-species for "doomsday prophets" of climate change, even though groups pushing for higher protection for the animals don't have the evidence to prove their case, Nunavut's manager of wildlife says.

"It makes a great story because it is simple and intuitive," Dr. Mitch Taylor wrote in a 12-page document for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's review of the animal's status. "However, the reality is much more complex."

The USFWS review follows a petition from the Centre for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and other groups, who want polar bears upgraded to "threatened" on the U.S. Endangered Species list.

The groups say the animals' population is suffering because of climate change, development and contaminants.

While Taylor said it's expected that climate change will affect all species worldwide, that shouldn't mean governments should rush to list every one as "threatened".

Delving into the patterns of polar bear eating habits, ice floe loss, population densities and other issues, Taylor downplays the overall impact of climate change.

"No evidence was presented by the proponents and no evidence exists that suggests that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions," he said. "Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles."

He said no one is suggesting that climate change isn't affecting some polar bear populations, but noted there are 20 polar bear populations in the world and each one should be considered independently.

"The references listed [in his document] suggest that each polar bear population is unique with respect to seasonal cycles, sea ice conditions, prey base, summer-retreat areas, and fidelity," he wrote.

"The 20 existing populations of polar bears are not all identical to the two populations that constitute the majority of the examples in the petition.

Taylor says many of the groups filing the petition have a long history of opposing hunting.

He said Canada has one of the best management systems for polar bears in the world, allowing Inuit to hunt in a sustainable manner and generating $3.5 million in Canada through sport hunts and the sale of hides.

"At present, the polar bear is one of the best-managed of the large Arctic mammals," Taylor said. "If all the Arctic nations continue to abide by the terms and intent of the Polar Bear Agreement, the future of polar bears is secure."

Taylor noted the estimated number of bears on the Boothia Peninsula, 1,300 kilometres west of Iqaluit, has actually increased to 1,500 animals from 900. He said environmental groups don't seem to want to take information like that into consideration when pressing their case.

"Life may be good, but good news about polar bear populations does not seem to be welcomed by the Centre for Biological Diversity," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/15/polar-bears.html

 

[Mahoney]

Global warming is politics masquerading as science.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Chad I've read the -the final proof- and other than the heading -fail to see any proof in article that global warming is man made--including your bold print.:shrug:

I did search on --
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster

--and could only find pages apon pages of Conners article on different blogs--maybe you could stear us article from reasearch center or verifiable source claiming "unequivocal link"

 

[MrChristo]

The proponents of global warming have vested interests in lying. .

Yet those (the lot!) involved in fossil fuel burning, oil fuelled "technology" don't??? :scared :shrug:

 

[krc]

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


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

krc

 

[Cie]

Yet those (the lot!) involved in fossil fuel burning, oil fuelled "technology" don't??? :scared :shrug:

That's the point. All of the powerful elite are self-serving scum imo. We need to quit supporting the Clinton's and the Bush's of this world. Both sides play the public against each other, and have been doing so - quite successfully - for years.

I have only recently started to think along these lines, but the more I read, the stronger I feel that a 3rd party is the necessary right now. Problem is, Fox & co. will continue to push conservative elites, and NBC, etc. will continue to do the same for liberal elites.

 

[Chadman]

Chad I've read the -the final proof- and other than the heading -fail to see any proof in article that global warming is man made--including your bold print.:shrug:

I did search on --
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster

--and could only find pages apon pages of Conners article on different blogs--maybe you could stear us article from reasearch center or verifiable source claiming "unequivocal link"

I'm not sure I put this stuff up as any kind of final proof of anything, just citing some examples and preparing to prove that it won't matter what I or anyone else puts up on this subject. Hundreds of scientists from all over the world, including people with full time jobs at major unbiased organizations like the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration come up with plenty of scientific findings and proof showing man's effect on our climate. Some of which that have no financial interest in what they are reporting. People that are a bazzillion times smarter than I am, especially on these issues. They might even be smarter than you are, I don't know. And what do you say to any of that? "What does that prove?"

I have no idea how to get past that...but I don't really understand why I should have to. It seems pretty obvious to most at this point that man would have a hand in it, considering what we have done over the years. To put it quite bluntly, to say that man has no effect on our climate seems, um, stupid, but maybe that's just me.

My point is, I think the concerns should be embraced, and not dismissed. We'd still be walking around on what would be assumed to be a flat planet if proof from various sources were routinely dismissed without cause.

 

[Mahoney]

full time jobs at major unbiased organizations like the US Department of Energy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration come up with plenty of scientific findings and proof showing man's effect on our climate. Some of which that have no financial interest in what they are reporting.

Faith like this is usually described as touching. These guys - what do they do, exactly? I mean, oil guys, evil as they of course are, at least find and procure oil, which we all use, even the bleaters for alternative energy (ie, heavily subsidized wastes of money). Government guys are bureaucrats, even the scientists. What they do is sit around the office and think up ways to expand their prestige and their budget. They concoct problems and fill out grant applications to get funding to solve them. Whether the problems are real or fake doesn't matter. I don't know if you've ever read up on the background of AIDS, but rest assured, scientific research, so-called, is very heavily politicized. The guys who take a level-headed approach don't get the funding, in many instances. It's the guys screaming that the sky is falling who make the news and get the budgets. What you say about these bureaucrats being disinterested is like saying that NASA has no financial/political/bureaucratic stake in sending a manned vehicle to Mars, it considers the question purely and objectively.

People that are a bazzillion times smarter than I am, especially on these issues. They might even be smarter than you are, I don't know. And what do you say to any of that? "What does that prove?"

I have no doubt they're much smarter than you, but that's irrelevant. There are so many nested assumptions - that temp is rising, that man is responsible, that man can easily change his ways to reverse course - none of which are proved, despite what you think, that it makes sense to go directly to the motives of the chicken littles, since they have proven records of lying to advance their agenda, which is more government, more taxes, more spending, less private money and private choices.

I have no idea how to get past that...but I don't really understand why I should have to. It seems pretty obvious to most at this point that man would have a hand in it, considering what we have done over the years. To put it quite bluntly, to say that man has no effect on our climate seems, um, stupid, but maybe that's just me.

It is just you. To me it seems obvious that man has negligible effect on the overall climate. Look at Mt. St. Helens - now THAT is something that is a big multiple of some stupid smoke-spewing factory. Man has only been recording temperature for a couple hundred years, the recordings are taken in places the political scientists know will weigh in high, and -- even if gets warmer, hooray! Winter sucks donkey ****. I wish global warming were true. Can't wait til we can grow bananas in Saskatchewan.

My point is, I think the concerns should be embraced, and not dismissed. We'd still be walking around on what would be assumed to be a flat planet if proof from various sources were routinely dismissed without cause.

That's reasonable - but only if we accept your claim that the balance of the evidence is clear. It is not. The media distort the picture. You can't sell Time magazine or attract eyeballs to CNN by showing business as usual for polar bears at the North Pole. You have to come up with a crisis that gets the viewers crying, and thereby ready to turn over the brain and wallet to Our Savior the Government.

 

[Mahoney]

No warming in Antarctica. Flannery fails again

Icon - Comments 40 Comments | 0 Trackbacks |

Andrew Bolt
Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:03am

CO2 Science sums up the findings of a new study in the Journal of Climate that finds, no, Antarctica is not warming, and hasn?t done for 32 years, despite countless TV scare-shots of glaciers falling into the sea:

The data in the figure above clearly indicate a post-1958 warming of Antarctica and much of the surrounding Southern Ocean. From approximately 1970 to the end of the record, however, temperatures of the region simply fluctuated around an anomaly mean of about 0.12?C, neither warming nor cooling over the final 32 years of the record.

This latter observation is truly amazing in light of the fact that the region of study includes the Antarctic Peninsula, which experienced phenomenal warming during this period. Nevertheless, the mean surface air temperature of the entire region changed not at all, over a period of time that saw the air?s CO2 concentration rise by approximately 47 ppm (about 15% of its 1970 value, as per the Mauna Loa CO2 record).

Clearly, the entire continent of Antarctica, together with much of the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, has been completely oblivious to the supposedly ?unprecedented? radiative impetus for warming produced by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the last three decades of the 20th century ... and even a bit beyond.

This should mean no more pictures of collapsing ice shelves in Antarctica to illustrate terrifying news stories on global warming, right?

Right?

Oh, and naturally we?ll get an apology from Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, who flogged this scare:

We are in the middle of some very large-scale changes. The melting of the Arctic ice cap is proceeding at, quite frankly, a horrifying speed. The destabilisation of ice shelves in the Antarctic is likewise going much too fast for comfort.

His Arctic scare has, of course, been debunked as well. Is there anything this guy gets right?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...o_warming_in_antarctica_flannery_fails_again/

 

[Mahoney]

However, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Catastrophic Global Warming crowd. There is strong, documented evidence to show they care little about sound science and facts and much more about their political agenda.

For example, in May of 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation?s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:

1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ?man-made causes."

That was not the last time data has been manipulated by the IPCC to fit its political agenda. In 2005, a federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea resigned from the UN-sponsored IPCC climate assessment team because his group?s leader had politicized the process. Landsea said in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming." He went onto say, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as being both motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

In 2006, the voices of reason are speaking out louder than ever. Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, says the global warming theory is neither environmental nor scientific, but rather, "a self-created political fiasco." Carter explains that "Climate changes occur naturally all the time, partly in predicable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles."

Meanwhile, more than 60 leading international climate change experts have gone on record to urge Canada?s new Prime Minster to carefully review global warming policies, warning that ?"Climate change is real? is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."

In April, 2006, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions." The study was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Gabriele Hegerl of Duke?s Nicholas Schools of the Environment and Earth Sciences said her study discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures.

In 2004 the Heartland Institute published a report by Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Lindzen reported that global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol. Lindzen, a member of the IPCC and one of the world?s leading climatologists, said that alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science.

Said Dr. Lindzen, "With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674

 

[Mahoney]

(More from link above)

So why, if scientists are researching the issue and if there is no consensus that global warming is a reality, is this voice not being heard? Why is a near panic building in the news media, on Capitol Hill and in research labs across the nation and in the international community?

Answer: fear and money.

Simply put, scientists know where the grants will come from to pay their salaries. Dr. Patrick Michaels, a leading opponent to the global warming scaremongers, calls it the federal/science paradigm. He describes it this way: Tax $ = Grants = Positive Feedback Loop to Get more Grants.

Says Dr. Michaels, "What worker bee scientist is going to write a proposal saying that global warming is exaggerated and he doesn?t need the money? Certainly no one wanting advancement in the agency! There is no alternative to this process when paradigms compete with each other for finite funding." The only ones who can openly oppose the party line of the day are those who don?t need the grants or who have some other source of funding. There aren?t many.

The money is in catastrophic global warming because it?s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It?s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media.

Case in point. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) used to publish the journal Science. Since 2000, it has published roughly 75 commentaries which have supported the idea that global warming is a serious problem requiring massive solutions. Now, the AAAS acts as a massive lobbying operation pushing this agenda. Taxpayers have now provided $20 billion into the scientific community for global warming work.

Moreover, Science and its British counterpart Nature won?t publish articles to the contrary of the agenda. If a scientist wants the prestige of being published, then he must carry the catastrophic global warming banner.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Just read Senate report and noticed KRC had already posted link above--knowing some do not read links will post this in full even if it takes 2 pages--

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

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:47 AM ET

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

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

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


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



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


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


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



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



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



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



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


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only ?about 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) & (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.? (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.? ?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)