10 things blamed on "global warming" in 2008.....

[Skull Pilot]

excuse the fuck pout of me for not finding a scientist you approve of

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

on page 12 you will find a conclusion and a list of references.

I fully expect you to take each one and invalidate the work and author. Here I'll make it easy for you since you won't bother to read the whole thing anyway

CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in hu man hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic ef -
fects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, how -
ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.


1. Rob inson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Rob inson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.
3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contribu -
tions_by_author/keigwin1996/
4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.
5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.
F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Mete orology 92, 3-26.
6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.
7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Car bon Dioxide Informa tion Anal ysis
Cen ter,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. De partment of En ergy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.
9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007)
NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies and NASA GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.
11. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003) Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.
12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Di oxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/edu cation/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.
14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.
15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.
16. New ton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027234.
17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_re covering_from_LIA_R.pdf
18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd In ternational Seminar on Planetary Emergencies,
Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Labora tory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.
19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.
20. U.S. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Cli mate Re view.
UNITED STATES Climate Summary
21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research
Letters 23, 1697-1700.
23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Science 293,
474-479.
24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical Res. 111,
2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.
University of Colorado Global mean sea level
26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, His tory, and the Mod ern World, Methuen, New York.
27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equilibrium Therm. 32, 1-27.
28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A.,
Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.
29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112,
2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.
30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.
31. Christy, J. R. (1995) Clima tic Change 31, 455-474.
32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.
34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.
35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.
36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001) Nature
411, 290-293.
37. Jiang, H., Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Geology 33, 73-76.
38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Ed wards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C.
A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.
40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
44. Hammel, H. B., and Lock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.
46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 165-168.
47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 168-170.
48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007) Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.
49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.
50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027142.
51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1998) private comm.
52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.
53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.
54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.
55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668;
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.
57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.
58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ. 114, 227-284.
59. Segalstad, T. V. (1998) Global Warm ing the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European
Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.
60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545.
61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Nature 411, 287-290.
62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4167-4171.
63. Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.
65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.
66. Soon, W. (2007) Physi cal Geography, in press.
67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1998) Tellus, 50B, 1-24.
68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Nature 343, 709-714.
69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
70. Yamashita, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.
71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Com pendium of Data on Global
Change, Carbon Dioxide In formation Anal y sis Cen ter, Oak Ridge Na tional Lab o ra tory;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
Trends in Carbon Dioxide
72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.
73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.
74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christmas Lectures, Royal In stitution,
London.
75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Science 315, 1533-1536.
76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Science 275, 1077-1078.
77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Nature 388, 460-462.
78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308,
1898-1901.
79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Science 313, 827-831.
80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.
81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379.
82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007).
83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997).
84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.
85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.
86. Idso, S. B. (1998) Climate Res. 10, 69-82.
87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Climate
Res. 18, 259-275.
88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Climate Sensitivity of Radiative Perturbations: Physi cal Mechanisms and
Their Validation, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66.
89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geophysical Res. 99, 14429-14441.
90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.
92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research
Letters 34, 2007GL029698.
93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication.
94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) Envi ronmental Science and
Technol ogy 41, 2131-2137.
95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006).
96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., and Corless, R. M. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
97. Gore, A. (2006) An Inconve nient Truth, Rodale, NY.
98. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.
99. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Clima tic Change 77, 211-219.
100. Idso, S. B. (1989) Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.
101. Lam, S. H. (2007) Logarithmic Response and Climate Sensitivity of Atmo spheric CO2, 1-15,
www.prince ton.edu/lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf.
102. Lindzen, R. S. (2005) Proc. 34th Int. Sem. Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, ed. R.
Raigaina, World Sci entific Publishing, Singa pore, 189-210.
103. Kimball, B. A. (1983) Agron. J. 75, 779-788.
104. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B. (1986) Agr. Forest Meteorol. 8, 127-145.
105. Mortensen, L. M. (1987) Sci. Hort. 33, 1-25.
106. Lawlor, D. W. and Mitch ell, R. A. C. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 807-818.
107. Drake, B. G. and Leadley, P. W. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 853-860.
108. Gifford, R. M. (1992) Adv. Bioclim. 1, 24-58.
109. Poorter, H. (1993) Vegetatio 104-105, 77-97.
110. Graybill, D. A. and Idso, S. B. (1993) Global Biogeochem. Cyc. 7, 81-95.
111. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell D. S. (1987) Forest Sta tistics of the United States,
U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
112. Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Vissage, J. S., and Pugh, S. A. (2002) Forest Re sources of the
United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
113. Grace, J., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A. C., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., Nobre, C., Moncrieff,
J., Massheder, J., Malhi, Y., Wright, I., and Gash, J. (1995) Science 270, 778-780.
114. Idso, K. E. and Idso, S. (1974) Agr. For est Meteor. 69, 153-203.
115. Kimball, B.A., Pinter Jr., P. J., Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W. G., LaMorte, R. L., Wechsung, G.,
Wechsung, F., and Kartschall, T. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 429-442.
116. Pinter, J. P., Kimball, B. A., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Hunsaker, D. J., and LaMorte, R. L.
(1996) Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems 215-250, Koch and Moo ney, Acad. Press.
117. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1991) Agr. For est Meteor. 55, 345-349.
118. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1994) J. Exper. Bot any 45, 1669-1692.
119. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A., (1997) Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96.
120. McNaughton, S. J., Oesterhold, M., Frank. D. A., and Wil liams, K. J. (1989) Nature 341,
142-144.
121. Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993) Nature 361, 148-150.
122. Scheiner, S. M. and Rey-Benayas, J. M. (1994) Evol. Ecol. 8, 331-347.
123. Gore, A., Pelosi, N., and Reid, H. (June 29, 2007) The Seven Point Live Earth Pledge. Speaker
of the House Website, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. and Live Earth.
124. Beck mann, P. (1985) The Health Hazards of NOT Go ing Nu clear, Golem, Boul der, Col orado.
125. American Nuclear Society, Nuclear News (2007) March, 46-48.
126. McNamara, B. (2006) Lea brook Computing, Bournemouth, Eng land.
127. Projected Costs of Gener ating Electricity: 2005 Update (2005), Paris: Nuclear En ergy Agency,
– 12 –
OECD Publication No. 53955 2005, Paris.
128. Pen ner, S. S. (1998) En ergy 23, 71-78.
129. Posma, B. (2007) Liquid Coal, Fort Myers, Fl, Liquid Coal Inc.
130. Ausubel,. J. H. (2007) Int. J. Nu clear Gov ernance, Economy and Ecology 1, 229-243.
131. Pen ner, S. S. (2006) Energy 31, 33-43.
132. Simon, J. L. (1996) The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

 

[Skull Pilot]

excuse the fuck pout of me for not finding a scientist you approve of

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

on page 12 you will find a conclusion and a list of references.

I fully expect you to take each one and invalidate the work and author. Here I'll make it easy for you since you won't bother to read the whole thing anyway

CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in hu man hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic ef -
fects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, how -
ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.


1. Rob inson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Rob inson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.
3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contribu -
tions_by_author/keigwin1996/
4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.
5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.
F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Mete orology 92, 3-26.
6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.
7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Car bon Dioxide Informa tion Anal ysis
Cen ter,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. De partment of En ergy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.
9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007)
NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies and NASA GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.
11. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003) Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.
12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Di oxide and Global Change
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/edu cation/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.
14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.
15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.
16. New ton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027234.
17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_re covering_from_LIA_R.pdf
18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd In ternational Seminar on Planetary Emergencies,
Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Labora tory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.
19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.
20. U.S. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Cli mate Re view.
UNITED STATES Climate Summary
21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research
Letters 23, 1697-1700.
23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Science 293,
474-479.
24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical Res. 111,
2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94.
University of Colorado Global mean sea level
26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, His tory, and the Mod ern World, Methuen, New York.
27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equilibrium Therm. 32, 1-27.
28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A.,
Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.
29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112,
2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.
30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.
31. Christy, J. R. (1995) Clima tic Change 31, 455-474.
32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.
34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.
35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.
36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001) Nature
411, 290-293.
37. Jiang, H., Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Geology 33, 73-76.
38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Ed wards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C.
A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.
40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
44. Hammel, H. B., and Lock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.
46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 165-168.
47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003) Nature 424, 168-170.
48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007) Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.
49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.
50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027142.
51. Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 3-4; Goodridge, J. D. (1998) private comm.
52. Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atm. Envirn. 29, 1957-1961.
53. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1987) J. Geophysical Res. 92, 13345-13372.
54. Hansen, J. and Lebedeff, S. (1988) Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323-326.
55. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., and Sato, M. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1665-1668;
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
56. Schimel, D. S. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 77-91.
57. Houghton, R. A. (2007) Annual Review of Earth and Plan etary Sciences 35, 313-347.
58. Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. (1992) Science of the Total Environ. 114, 227-284.
59. Segalstad, T. V. (1998) Global Warm ing the Continuing Debate, Cambridge UK: European
Science and En vironment Forum, ed. R. Bate, 184-218.
60. Berner, R. A. (1997) Science 276, 544-545.
61. Retallack, G. J. (2001) Nature 411, 287-290.
62. Rothman, D. H. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4167-4171.
63. Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
64. Siegenthaler, U., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1313-1317.
65. Spahni, R., et. al. (2005) Science 310, 1317-1321.
66. Soon, W. (2007) Physi cal Geography, in press.
67. Dettinger, M. D. and Ghill, M. (1998) Tellus, 50B, 1-24.
68. Kuo, C., Lindberg, C. R., and Thornson, D. J. (1990) Nature 343, 709-714.
69. Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
70. Yamashita, E., Fujiwara, F., Liu, X., and Ohtaki, E. (1993) J. Oceanography 49, 559-569.
71. Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. (1997) Trends On line: A Com pendium of Data on Global
Change, Carbon Dioxide In formation Anal y sis Cen ter, Oak Ridge Na tional Lab o ra tory;
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
Trends in Carbon Dioxide
72. Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.
73. Ar cher, D. (2005) J. Geophysical Res. 110, 2004JC002625.
74. Faraday, M. (1860) The Chemical History of a Can dle, Christmas Lectures, Royal In stitution,
London.
75. Serreze, M. C., Hol land, M. M., and Stroeve, J. (2007) Science 315, 1533-1536.
76. Bentley, C. R. (1997) Science 275, 1077-1078.
77. Nicholls, K. W. (1997) Nature 388, 460-462.
78. Davis, C. H., Li, Y., McConnell, J. R., Frey, M. M., and Hanna, E. (2005) Sci ence 308,
1898-1901.
79. Monaghan, A. J., et. al. (2006) Science 313, 827-831.
80. Kullman, L. (2007) Nordic Journal of Botany 24, 445-467.
81. Lindzen, R. S. (1994) Ann. Re view Fluid Mech. 26, 353-379.
82. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Work ing Group I Report (2007).
83. Kyoto Pro tocol to the United Na tions Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1997).
84. Sun, D. Z. and Lindzen, R. S. (1993) Ann. Geophysicae 11, 204-215.
85. Spencer, R. W. and Braswell, W. D. (1997) Bull. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78, 1097-1106.
86. Idso, S. B. (1998) Climate Res. 10, 69-82.
87. Soon, W., Baliunas, S., Idso, S. B., Kondratyev, K. Ya., and Posmentier, E. S. (2001) Climate
Res. 18, 259-275.
88. Lindzen, R. S. (1996) Climate Sensitivity of Radiative Perturbations: Physi cal Mechanisms and
Their Validation, NATO ASI Series 134, ed. H. Le Treut, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 51-66.
89. Renno, N. O., Emanuel, K. A., and Stone, P. H. (1994) J. Geophysical Res. 99, 14429-14441.
90. Soden, B. J. (2000) Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
91. Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M., and Hou, A. Y. (2001) Bull. Amer. Meteorlogical Soc. 82, 417-432.
92. Spencer, R. W., Braswell, W. D., Christy, J. R., and Hnilo, J. (2007) Geophysical Research
Letters 34, 2007GL029698.
93. Lindzen, R. S. (1995), per sonal communication.
94. Khalil, M. A. K., Butenhoff, C. L., and Ras mus sen, R. A. (2007) Envi ronmental Science and
Technol ogy 41, 2131-2137.
95. An nual Energy Review, U.S. En ergy In formation Admin., Report No. DOE/EIA-0384 (2006).
96. Essex, C., Ilie, S., and Corless, R. M. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.
97. Gore, A. (2006) An Inconve nient Truth, Rodale, NY.
98. Pen ner, S S., Schneider, A. M., and Kennedy, E. M. (1984) Acta Astronautica 11, 345-348.
99. Crutzen, P. J. (2006) Clima tic Change 77, 211-219.
100. Idso, S. B. (1989) Carbon Di oxide and Global Change: Earth in Tran sition, IBR Press.
101. Lam, S. H. (2007) Logarithmic Response and Climate Sensitivity of Atmo spheric CO2, 1-15,
www.prince ton.edu/lam/documents/LamAug07bs.pdf.
102. Lindzen, R. S. (2005) Proc. 34th Int. Sem. Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, ed. R.
Raigaina, World Sci entific Publishing, Singa pore, 189-210.
103. Kimball, B. A. (1983) Agron. J. 75, 779-788.
104. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B. (1986) Agr. Forest Meteorol. 8, 127-145.
105. Mortensen, L. M. (1987) Sci. Hort. 33, 1-25.
106. Lawlor, D. W. and Mitch ell, R. A. C. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 807-818.
107. Drake, B. G. and Leadley, P. W. (1991) Plant, Cell, and Environ. 14, 853-860.
108. Gifford, R. M. (1992) Adv. Bioclim. 1, 24-58.
109. Poorter, H. (1993) Vegetatio 104-105, 77-97.
110. Graybill, D. A. and Idso, S. B. (1993) Global Biogeochem. Cyc. 7, 81-95.
111. Waddell, K. L., Oswald, D. D., and Powell D. S. (1987) Forest Sta tistics of the United States,
U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
112. Smith, W. B., Miles, P. D., Vissage, J. S., and Pugh, S. A. (2002) Forest Re sources of the
United States, U.S. For est Ser vice and Dept. of Ag riculture.
113. Grace, J., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A. C., Meir, P., Miranda, H. S., Nobre, C., Moncrieff,
J., Massheder, J., Malhi, Y., Wright, I., and Gash, J. (1995) Science 270, 778-780.
114. Idso, K. E. and Idso, S. (1974) Agr. For est Meteor. 69, 153-203.
115. Kimball, B.A., Pinter Jr., P. J., Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W. G., LaMorte, R. L., Wechsung, G.,
Wechsung, F., and Kartschall, T. (1995) Global Change Biology 1, 429-442.
116. Pinter, J. P., Kimball, B. A., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Hunsaker, D. J., and LaMorte, R. L.
(1996) Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems 215-250, Koch and Moo ney, Acad. Press.
117. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1991) Agr. For est Meteor. 55, 345-349.
118. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A. (1994) J. Exper. Bot any 45, 1669-1692.
119. Idso, S. B. and Kimball, B. A., (1997) Global Change Biol. 3, 89-96.
120. McNaughton, S. J., Oesterhold, M., Frank. D. A., and Wil liams, K. J. (1989) Nature 341,
142-144.
121. Cyr, H. and Pace, M. L. (1993) Nature 361, 148-150.
122. Scheiner, S. M. and Rey-Benayas, J. M. (1994) Evol. Ecol. 8, 331-347.
123. Gore, A., Pelosi, N., and Reid, H. (June 29, 2007) The Seven Point Live Earth Pledge. Speaker
of the House Website, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. and Live Earth.
124. Beck mann, P. (1985) The Health Hazards of NOT Go ing Nu clear, Golem, Boul der, Col orado.
125. American Nuclear Society, Nuclear News (2007) March, 46-48.
126. McNamara, B. (2006) Lea brook Computing, Bournemouth, Eng land.
127. Projected Costs of Gener ating Electricity: 2005 Update (2005), Paris: Nuclear En ergy Agency,
– 12 –
OECD Publication No. 53955 2005, Paris.
128. Pen ner, S. S. (1998) En ergy 23, 71-78.
129. Posma, B. (2007) Liquid Coal, Fort Myers, Fl, Liquid Coal Inc.
130. Ausubel,. J. H. (2007) Int. J. Nu clear Gov ernance, Economy and Ecology 1, 229-243.
131. Pen ner, S. S. (2006) Energy 31, 33-43.
132. Simon, J. L. (1996) The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bob Carter | Logical Science's skeptic rundown

 

[Old Rocks]

CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in hu man hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape


Oh brother. From Tyndal, Arnnhenius, Callender, Suess, and so many more, this peice of stupidity has been shown to be totally false.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Missourian]

There are a plenty of scientists who are skeptical of the conclusions of the theory of Global Warming.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[Missourian]

You scoured the planet and this guy is the best you could come up with?

Get back to me when you can provide me a link to a nationally or internationally recognized scientific body that supports you.

As for this dude you're citing.

"Bob Carter".

-"James Cook University" WTF is "James Cook University". Never heard of it

-"Adjunct Professor" Do you even know what an "adjunct professor" is? Its a dude who works part time, isn't tenured, and wasn't good enough to be hired for a permanent, tenure-track faculty postion

-"Degrees in Paleontology and Stratigraphy". Okay, so's he's a paletontologist and geologist. He's not a world-wide recognized expert in modern climatology.



Stop fucking wasting my time with this "heartland.org" and "Bob Carter" shit.

Why are you so hateful? This isn't a contest.

The scientific method depends on the questioning of results.

 

[Red Dawn]

excuse the fuck pout of me for not finding a scientist you approve of

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

.

OMFG! You are a complete tool! Did you think I wouldn't check were you got your link from??? The "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine"??!!!!

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located about seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. It describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."

OISM lists six "faculty members," but does not enroll students or teach courses.

The OISM is known mostly for the role it played in 1998 in circulating the Oregon Petition, a "scientists' petition" on global warming, in collaboration with the late Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as ["a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000


Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

You're a complete tool.

All you've given me is a link to "heartland.org"

To part-time adjunct professor "Bob Carter" from "James Cook University"

And to some crackpot "Institute" located on a farm in Oregon that promotes homeschooling and how to "survive nuclear war"


You're a tool. Stop fucking wasting my time. You choose to believe crackpot wingnut websites. Don't fucking waste my time with another bullshit post, from a crackpot rightwing political group

 

[Old Rocks]

You scoured the planet and this guy is the best you could come up with?

Get back to me when you can provide me a link to a nationally or internationally recognized scientific body that supports you.

As for this dude you're citing.

"Bob Carter".

-"James Cook University" WTF is "James Cook University". Never heard of it

-"Adjunct Professor" Do you even know what an "adjunct professor" is? Its a dude who works part time, isn't tenured, and wasn't good enough to be hired for a permanent, tenure-track faculty postion

-"Degrees in Paleontology and Stratigraphy". Okay, so's he's a paletontologist and geologist. He's not a world-wide recognized expert in modern climatology.



Stop fucking wasting my time with this "heartland.org" and "Bob Carter" shit.

Why are you so hateful? This isn't a contest.

The scientific method depends on the questioning of results.

Yes, it does. The intelligent questioning of results. That is why I have researched the issue at length. Many, many of those that are listed as sceptics do not question that we have influenced the warming by the addition of CO2. They just believe that we are not the primary factor. The single problem with their position is that they have failed thus far to show any other factor that is affecting the climate in a major way at present.

There are even those that state that the warming is not real. The result of 'Heat Islands' and such. Yet we see the accelerated melting of glaciers and ice caps. Undeniable results of a warming atmosphere. The perma-frost is warming and releasing even more GHGs into the atmosphere. All very real effects of the warming.

Something else to notice here is that the articles referred to by many of those 'sceptics' are not only not from peer reviewed sources, mostly not even from scientific sources, but are also filled with strawmen arguements, and invectutive. While I can wax as pugalistic verbally as the next fellow, I do try to base my arguements on real scientific research. No referances to 'climate religion', or other such irrelevancies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Skull, glad to see you posting sites that so strongly support the position of Anthropogenic Global Warming;

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

 

[del]

yes every single dissenting voice is wrong. only you have the answers

did you read the study, of course not.

So the testimony of scientists in government hearings is also no good?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

seems to me a lot of scientists question the alarmists.

The scientists are not the question.

The question is, if you increase CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, will it warm the earth?

The answer is, yes.

Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What will the result of that be?

i'm hoping it causes vagina beach to sink neath the waves.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are a plenty of scientists who are skeptical of the conclusions of the theory of Global Warming.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Yes. But there is not room on a single site to list those that agree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Evey single scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. That truly represents an overwhelming scientific consensus. As far as skeptics are concerned, I have met a few professors in Geology that still have doubts concerning Tectonic Theory.

 

[Red Dawn]

There are a plenty of scientists who are skeptical of the conclusions of the theory of Global Warming.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

No its not.

The link you provided says that its NOT a list of "skeptics"

Your Link:

"[This List] should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."

I know how science works.

There's always going to be some uncertianties. As your own link points out, this "list" doesn't suggest the scientists are "skeptical" of anthropogenic causes of global warming. Many of them don't even conlcude that such anthropogenic changes are harmless.

There is debate, and always will be debate, about the exact magnitude and scope of human influence. Science is never going to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science deals in probabilities, not absolute certainties.

The question is, are we certain enough that humans are affecting climate to take it seriously, and to take actions to mitigate it? That's up to policy makers.

Every single major established scientific body on the planet with expertise in climate says its a near certainty that humans are affecting climate to a significant degree. Of couse, you can always travel the world, find some dude with a bachelors degree in chemistry, and hold him out as a "scientist" who thinks humans have no influence. But those are often political opinions, given by somone with neither the expertise in the subject area, or who don't even do their own original field or laboratory research in modern climate science.

 

[Missourian]

Yes. But there is not room on a single site to list those that agree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Evey single scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. That truly represents an overwhelming scientific consensus. As far as skeptics are concerned, I have met a few professors in Geology that still have doubts concerning Tectonic Theory.

Here are two of my biggest concerns about the theory of global warming.


1) The Earth has cooled (ice ages) and rewarmed without requiring mankind as a factor. We had discussed this before, but so far I am not convinced.

2) If these climate models are so accurate, why can they not even produce the current climate accurately?


From Can We Trust Climate Models?

By Julie J. Rehmeyer, April 24, 2008

Link




"The models provide a seductive way of trying to answer that question. One might imagine that if you fed the current conditions into the model as the initial conditions, then the climate simulation the model produces would be pretty close to the climate we’ll actually experience.

But remember that the models were not designed to be crystal balls; they were designed to illuminate how the different aspects of climate affect one another. If the models were a perfect reconstruction of the physical world, their predictions could be expected to be accurate, but they’re not anywhere close to that and will probably never be. At the moment, they can’t even reproduce current climate accurately – a far easier problem than predicting a future climate that mankind has never experienced. So the projections of climate models about future climate may not have any clear relation to what will actually happen. "

 

[alan1]

So, I'll assume you don't have one, single solitary link to a nationally-recognized and established American Scientific body with expertise in climate science that agrees with your assertions.

All you have are links to senators websites, private think tanks no one's ever heard of, or editorial pages of conservative newspapers.

I am not making assertions. I am merely stating that the list of Global Warming dissenters is growing. Why do you think that is?

Another epic fail.

Your link is from a senator's website. It's a political compilation. You've been provided unrefuted links that show some of the scientists on that list have been asked to be taken off, some of the "quotes" provided were takend out of context, and the vast majority of those "scientists" don't have PhDs or do their own orginal research in the relevant subject area.

Here's a clue: some dude with a bachelor's degree in horticulture or economics does not qualify as a research scientist who has credibility in the profession of climate science.


At this point, I'm going to have to assume that you simply cannot provide one single, solitary link to a nationally recongnized and established American scientific body that has expertise in climate science to back up your assertions.


Thanks for playing.

Good thing we have Al Gore to set us straight.

 

[Chris]

Yes. But there is not room on a single site to list those that agree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Evey single scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. That truly represents an overwhelming scientific consensus. As far as skeptics are concerned, I have met a few professors in Geology that still have doubts concerning Tectonic Theory.

Here are two of my biggest concerns about the theory of global warming.


1) The Earth has cooled (ice ages) and rewarmed without requiring mankind as a factor. We had discussed this before, but so far I am not convinced.

2) If these climate models are so accurate, why can they not even produce the current climate accurately?


From Can We Trust Climate Models?

By Julie J. Rehmeyer, April 24, 2008

Link




"The models provide a seductive way of trying to answer that question. One might imagine that if you fed the current conditions into the model as the initial conditions, then the climate simulation the model produces would be pretty close to the climate we’ll actually experience.

But remember that the models were not designed to be crystal balls; they were designed to illuminate how the different aspects of climate affect one another. If the models were a perfect reconstruction of the physical world, their predictions could be expected to be accurate, but they’re not anywhere close to that and will probably never be. At the moment, they can’t even reproduce current climate accurately – a far easier problem than predicting a future climate that mankind has never experienced. So the projections of climate models about future climate may not have any clear relation to what will actually happen. "

None of this matters, partner.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, so we are warming the earth. This increase in CO2 is accelerating, and now there are signs that arctic methane is joining the mix. The question is, where will this lead?

If we are headed for a new ice age because of solar aspects, then this warming could be a good thing. If we are not, the results could be catastrophic.

 

[LeoLady]

Of course, were you to actually read something on global warming from a scientific source, instead of Fox's out in right field "neener-neeners", you might actually have something to contribute to the subject.

European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”[38]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[39]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, isn't Wikipedia user generated? Regarding this, it's purely agenda driven. Lefty wackos. We're all gonna die!!!!!

 

[Chris]

Of course, were you to actually read something on global warming from a scientific source, instead of Fox's out in right field "neener-neeners", you might actually have something to contribute to the subject.

European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”[38]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[39]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, isn't Wikipedia user generated? Regarding this, it's purely agenda driven. Lefty wackos. We're all gonna die!!!!!

Actually, you are the wacko.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, were you to actually read something on global warming from a scientific source, instead of Fox's out in right field "neener-neeners", you might actually have something to contribute to the subject.

European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”[38]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[39]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, isn't Wikipedia user generated? Regarding this, it's purely agenda driven. Lefty wackos. We're all gonna die!!!!!

Silly ass. That is a quote from the European Geophysical Union. Were you to follow the links in the wiki site, you would get the policy statements of the world's scientific organizations. And, yes, we are all going to die. That is in the contract when we are born. However, the world we leave to our children is up to us. Right now, we have not done so well in that department.

 

[Red Dawn]

Good thing we have Al Gore to set us straight.

Weak.

A lame, shop worn jab at Al Gore can't rescue, or distract for the climate denialists that have been posting on this thread.

Let's review how this went down.

I prointed to unrefuted statements made by every single major national and international scientific organization on the planet with expertise in climate science, which conclude that its a near certainty that humans are affecting the climate in a significant way.

I asked for credible links from the denialists to major established scientific organizations that support their position.

And the laughs ensued! I was provided:

1) some rightwing website called "hearland.org" that I've never heard of.

2) Then, I was given the name of some dude named "Bob Carter", who it turns out is a part time, non tenured faculty at some college called "James Cook University". Never heard of it.

3) Then, in a last desperate attempt skull pilot gave me a link to some "institute", which it turned out after 20 seconds of investigation is some crack pot think tank located on a farm in Oregon. And they actually don't do any original research. But they do seminars on the benefits of home schooling, and the evil socialims of public schools!

4) Finally, somebody threw up a list from Wiki, purportedly showing a legitmate "list" of climate science "sceptics". But, upon reading into the second paragraph of the wiki link, Wiki made clear it wasn't really a "list" of people who were real "skeptics. The list didn't include people who even denied that humans were affecting climate, or that human activities were harmful. It was merely a list of people with questions and doubts about some of the scientific methodolgy, if not the overall conclusions. Well, that's standard science. There's always debate about quantifying things, and methodolgies. Scientists are still debating the exact nature and origin of gravity 400 years after Isacc Newton. Only a home schooler could possibly think anything is ever 100% settled in science beyond a shadow of a doubt.


WEAK.

 

[LeoLady]

Of course, were you to actually read something on global warming from a scientific source, instead of Fox's out in right field "neener-neeners", you might actually have something to contribute to the subject.

European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”[38]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[39]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, isn't Wikipedia user generated? Regarding this, it's purely agenda driven. Lefty wackos. We're all gonna die!!!!!

Silly ass. That is a quote from the European Geophysical Union. Were you to follow the links in the wiki site, you would get the policy statements of the world's scientific organizations. And, yes, we are all going to die. That is in the contract when we are born. However, the world we leave to our children is up to us. Right now, we have not done so well in that department.

Okay, okay. Yes, the world we leave to our children is in our hands, so, we do need to treat our earth kindly. I've never disagreed with that. I do, however, disagree with the notion that us humans and cows are killing the earth. It's been around a whole lot longer than we have!

As for the European Geophysical Union. I could really care less what they say. They are there to initiate panic among the people. To create an issue... that will cost you and me money in the future (and with Obama in the house, the future is near).

In the mean time, I'll keep using my incandescent light bulbs (till their off the market, of course).