What do we do with this? The people quoted in this story are a helluva lot smarter than I am. I'm led to believe this issue is "settled." That man is causing global warming and that it will be catastrophic...perhaps sooner than later. I'm not a believer either way. I'm concerned with cleaning up the environment for the sake of doing so...without global warming. Are all of these people bought off? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History' POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned… A hint of what the upcoming report contains: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # # In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History') The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
I saw the link to "Senator Inhofe's Guide to Debunking Global Warming" on the side of your site and it made me sigh....what is next? "Governor Huckabee's Guide to Jesus Horses and fraudulent carbon-dating"? "Newt Gingrich's Manual for Modern Phrenology"? This is the same argument we have rehashed many a time. Simply because you can find a few people with Ph.D's (usually not climate scientists) who are going to espouse a contrarian theory on global warming that goes against the great weight of the evidence does not invalidate the existing evidence. Look, the guys who filed the lawsuit saying that the Large Hadron Collider is going to destroy the universe are also smarter than me about particle physics. That doesn't make them not crackpots or people who are motivated by other things. There is a hardcore of GW denialists out there. There is a hardcore of evolution denialists, and gravity denialists. SOme of these people are even tenured professors with fancy degrees. They all have their own motivations for being wrong...some for attention, some for money, some for whatever. They are also largely considered to be wrong by most of their peers. I've accused you of this before and you are doing it again - you like to portray both sides as being equal here and worthy of equal time, and "the jury still being out" a la GW Bush in 2000, when the scientific establishment has determined that not to be the case. Counting down the posts till somebody posts taht "THE GUY WHO FOUNDED THE WEATHER CHANNEL DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING!!"
I thought about that when I started this thread. Let's be clear about one thing...I have no agenda on this issue whatsoever. I'm completely open to either side of this discussion. But when I hear Nobel prize winners saying, "this is defintely not a settled issue," how am I to merely dismiss that? How the hell would I know? So the "establishment" says it's so and we're not to question? This is just me on a basketball forum. I'm not trying to change the world here. I'm hoping for some real discussion besides, "ah, these guys are crackpots because the establishment told me so."
I want to know what happened to that hole in the ozone layer. After this is gone, another environmental scare will just rise from the ashes to take its place. It seems most people who support global warming aren't climate scientists, they are others who have just accepted it as fact and use it as a pretext to get research dollars to study global warming's effect on ants in south america. Not that I'm against protecting the environment. Go ahead and do it, use electric cars, whatever, there are lots of other good reasons to support those thing, but stop with all the mindless hysteria.
Sorry if I don't believe you but I know that you know better than this. If I say "I have no agenda, but some really smart people with advanced degrees and fancy studies have done surveys at Auschwitz and concluded that the Holocaust was faked" - would you think I had an agenda? I surely would. You're posting stories from Senator Inhofe's personal blog (his reputation on science is such that if Inhofe was the pope, Galileo would have been disemboweled) and saying that you have no agenda and are suprised that anybody would read one in? Sorry - you're too smart to not know that.
Of the scientists who have made an educated decision on the causes of global waming, it would be interesting to know what percentage do these 650 scientists comprise? 1%? 10%? .00125%? Not that it would mean they were right or wrong, but it may provide some perspective on the prevailing scientific consensus. Cheapshot example -> There were quite a few people on this board who argued that Palin was qualified for VP.
We have reduced CFC emissions and there are some reports that it may have reduced in size but it fluctuates from year to year. However total reduction isn't supposed to occur for another few decades. An annual 6% reduction CFC emissions isn't going to undo a century's worth of damage Way to invalidate your own argument from the get-go.
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really not that smart. And comparing this to the Holocaust is so crazy to me...that must evidence how unsmart I am. I've yet to see people of the caliber of these in this report suggesting the Holocaust didn't happen. There is a large contingent in Vidor who supports that theory, however.
Why is it crazy to you? I think we had this example before There is a man named Fred Leuchter, profiled in Errol Morris' documentary Mr. Death. Leuchter was an expert in the area of forensics and specifically, state-sanctioned execution. He wrote several manuals on how to kill people. He made detailed scientific studies of Auschwitz. Now let me add that there is no evidence that he was a radical anti-semite or a neo-nazi or anything like that. But he presented scientific evidence (based on concetrations of gases in the debris) that gas-chamber killings did not occur. if I started a thread on that, citing his superior credentials to my own - how is that not the same as what you are doing here?
Oh yeah, there couldn't be any possible political agenda for those who are trying to ram Global Warming down the world's throat. It's just wrong the way dissent or criticism is being sqeezed today. God only knows the truth about global warming, everyone else is guessing.
I denounce global warming as a false scare tactic by politicians ans scientists alike to push their agenda. Can any of the supporters of this farce explain me how CO2 is now a pollutant on this planet?
So what if there is...first off, the two sides aren't comparable. Nobody WANTS there to be global warming. Nobody wins if the earth turns uninhabitable and ****ty - nobody wants to have to solve hard problems. I would be perfectly happy if tomorrow, scientists (not a bunch of crackpots) decided it was no biggie and we could go on burning fossil fuels indefinitely. I don't take any joy in rising oceans and desertification. Rather I wish for the opposite. I would be overjoyed if I were wrong on GW and it was all a big fake. It would be awesome. Contrast this with say ExxonMobil and paid organ grinder monkeys like Inhofe as well as supporting crackpots - if they are wrong, they stand to lose a lot - trillions in fact. (Yes, I know there is a nascent green/environmental industry that stands to profit from GW but they are a pittance compared to the trillions of dollars of establishment interests in the fossil-fuel based economy among other things). They stand to lose A LOT if they are wrong. Would they be happy if they are wrong and GW is real? Signs point to no. ghettocheeze your post is so devoid of meaningful content that it makes me sad for the future of the human race. Well not really, but suffice it to say you have a lot to learn and the outlook for you learning it is slim if your post is any indicator.
You mean this little thing? Haven't we already debunked that list? I remember there being economists on it, retired people, tv weathermen, people who have been paid by oil companies, and some people who claim they were tricked into signing off on it. Either way, it's a list of 650 people. There are thousands upon thousands of actual scientists who think man is having an effect on climate.
You are the one living in your own delusion of duality. Either there is a GW or none. Your wishful thinking of hoping for the best outcome doesn't solve the fact you are asking to the world to change our entire lifestyle and adopt whole new set of environmental laws and regulations that infiltrate every aspect of our society from manufacturing in this country to our personal transportation and housing. Yet you have to no empirical evidence whatsoever of this existence of great threat to humanity. I posed a simple question and you chose to not answer truthfully in order to to take the intellectual high ground and make accusations of being misinformed and unable to learn whatever deceit the establishment wants you to follow. Again I urge to make your case and explain why you hold your position on such an issue as global warming? Give me empirical evidence of this threat not what you hear from scientist who are all in disagreement and many are now challenging the factual data behind this claim made by the UN committee.
Wow. That was fast. This entry was just posted on Inhofe's committee site this morning yet here it is already on Clutchfans. Do you frequently read the web site of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority? If not, where'd you hear about this? It will be interesting to see how many of the scientists quoted in this report come out and say they were misquoted or quoted out of context. My guess is more than a few. It will also be interesting to see how many are actually doing Climate work. I see a lot of geologists and physical scientists in that release, which would presumably highlight the best quotes they can come up with. As to the only real claims in what was posted, both have been thoroughly refuted and exist as science only in the minds of deniers. I think we've already discussed the role of the sun in a previous thread, so I won't go into great detail because I'm tired of beating back zombie ideas over and over again, particularly those that intentionally simplify and misrepresent incredibly complex phenomena, but here's a nice summation: Sea level rise is much easier to understand. Most of the recent denials are based on news stories before the last IPCC release. I should say "erroneous news stories." The sea level rise mentioned in these articles (but not in the IPCC report in the context given here) has led many deniers to claim that sea level rise is no big deal. Likewise, there have been intentional misreadings of the sea level data to claim the rising has stopped. In reality, sea levels have risen about 3.1 millimeters per year since 1993. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf Of course, it's plain that Inhofe is mustering as much ammo as he can to try and stop any Obama initiatives on climate change, cap and trade, and carbon emissions and that he cares not for the science, but is only concerned with the politics of his contributors.
Bully! Hear, Hear! I denounce the fact that my DNA makes big ugly kids. Instead, I will have beautiful athletic kids. CO2 is a natural and necessary component of our environment, but too much is bad. An analogy is with water... we all need it to function, but if you drink too much water too fast, it is possible to kill yourself.
I'm sorry that your only exposure to this stuff was Captain Planet, it wasn't fair to you that some tv producers barely skimmed through some papers and tried to force those half assed explanations down your throat. But you are grown man now, go read a *****ing book, or at least wikipedia.
