Man Made Global Warming KOOKS

[Oddball]

Industrialized man is adding vastly less than that which is occurring organically.

You are a fool and an intellectual fraud.

Now, clearly and unambiguously link to the post where you claim I lied, and your proof.

I'm calling you out right here and now, asshole.

 

[FactFinder]

Don't you have some customers to complain about??

I won a "get out of work at 2pm" thing for doing so well last month, bitch. I'm out in 28 minutes.

Getting out early from the arduous task of posting on internet sites? Wow! I feel your pain having to struggle with all those distractions at work. No wonder your posts seem to be lacking.

Oh, all who believe that AGW is a bunch of hooey are not Republicans. This registered Independent can be counted among those disgusted with capitalist provocateurs like Gore manipulating the gullible.

 

[ozzmdj]

Its all mans fault



National Weather Service Text Product Display

 

[Caligirl]

Speaking as a member of the science community in southern california it's my sense that the "debate" in science is not the same as the "debate" in pop culture, at all. There is no serious disagreement (that I am aware of) that CO2 contributes to warming, among the scientists I work with, and I overlap 2 departments including planetary sciences. I don't know of a single "skeptic" *of the variety on this board*, not one. At conferences that have climate sessions, the odd skeptic here and there is invariably associated with oil, not academia. There are skeptics, but what they are skeptical of is things like whether an ice sheet collapse is due directly to warming or something else (such as an underground volcanic event). Global warming is not considered at all controversial, there is essentially complete consensus. debates on the topic in science are about individual events, and what the level of uncertainty is in any particular event.

I wouldn't presume to tell someone in the Navy what the Navy is about, so hopefully my experience in academia is useful here.

Respectfully,
Cali

Water vapor traps faaaaaaaaaar more heat than does CO2. It comprises a far greater percentage of the atmosphere than CO2 as well......Those are also undeniable scientific facts.

The percentage of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere attributable to industrial activities is far less than that which has occurred naturally...Also factual.

Now, please insult everyone's intelligence and tell us all that the circles of academe in which you run are completely apolitical.

Nowhere did I say that CO2 was the main determinant of global temperatures, and nowhere did I say that science says this.

"Natural" CO2 is determined through isotopic analysis. Fossil fuels have a different isotopic signature than organic carbon (rotting stuff and farts, etc) so we can measure the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that is derived from fossil fuel use. But, here's the thing - Natural CO2 comes from stuff like deforestation and aggressive agricultural practices (cattle etc) - so although these are "natural" processes, they still fall under anthropogenic - land use etc.

Anyway, your concern about water vapor and thinking that I said, anywhere, that CO2 is the main determinant of temperature (I didn't say that) - sort of makes the point though, that what science says - and what pop culture says that science says - are completely different. (I blame the media.)

Why on earth would I say that people in science are apolitical?

I am not qualified to tell you what your job is like, so I won't (besides I don't know what it is ) - and frankly unless you have worked in acedemics you really probably don't know what those sorts of jobs are like either. You can be a skeptic all you want but this whole "scientists think XYZ" part of the argument is ignorant.

I also don't think I insulted anyone's intelligence anywhere. Except Sealybobos.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Water Vapor in the Balance" the new and this time honest sequel to Al Gore Lying peer reviewed work of fiction "Earth in the Balance.

Is CO2 evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere? I mean it's a rounding error anyway, is it more concentrated in any given layer?

 

[Caligirl]

I have no idea OTTOMH, but I would assume it's highest near the ground (near the source) and it makes sense that it will stratify in different layers.

Water vapor is the subject of some current interesting models see for example a science PDF, not media hype::


http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/DecadalPrediction.FINAL.pdf

Introduction
The scientific understanding of Earth’s climate system is now sufficiently developed to show that climate change from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is already upon us, and the rate of change as projected exceeds anything seen in nature in the past 10,000 years. Uncertainties remain, however, especially regarding how climate will change at regional and local scales where the signal of natural variability is large. Decision makers in diverse arenas, from water managers in the U.S. Southwest to public health experts in Asia, need to know the extent to which the climate events they are seeing are the product of natural variability, and hence can be expected to reverse at some point, or are the result of potentially irreversible anthropogenic climate change.

And this sort of also makes the point of how much unceratinty there is in science, see the parts I highlighted, but that doesn't mean that there isn't consensus that CO2 from man's activities (and woman's) contributes. It's like throwing on a blanket on a hot day. You only control the blanket, not the hot day, but to say that the blanket isn't contributing - because it is a hot day after all - would be silly.

 

[Sinatra]

I have no idea OTTOMH, but I would assume it's highest near the ground (near the source) and it makes sense that it will stratify in different layers.

Water vapor is the subject of some current interesting models see for example a science PDF, not media hype::


http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/DecadalPrediction.FINAL.pdf

Introduction
The scientific understanding of Earth’s climate system is now sufficiently developed to show that climate change from anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is already upon us, and the rate of change as projected exceeds anything seen in nature in the past 10,000 years. Uncertainties remain, however, especially regarding how climate will change at regional and local scales where the signal of natural variability is large. Decision makers in diverse arenas, from water managers in the U.S. Southwest to public health experts in Asia, need to know the extent to which the climate events they are seeing are the product of natural variability, and hence can be expected to reverse at some point, or are the result of potentially irreversible anthropogenic climate change.

And this sort of also makes the point of how much unceratinty there is in science, see the parts I highlighted, but that doesn't mean that there isn't consensus that CO2 from man's activities (and woman's) contributes. It's like throwing on a blanket on a hot day. You only control the blanket, not the hot day, but to say that the blanket isn't contributing - because it is a hot day after all - would be silly.

The "blanket" you are referencing would be a less than paper thin sheet of material with almost no impact on making you feel any warmer - that would be akin to humankind's impact on climate temps via its CO2 emissions. The earth's natural CO2 emissions dwarf humankind's contributions, and CO2 as a whole, plays a far less significant secondary impacting role on global temps.

Humankind can impact the environment much-much more than the climate...

 

[Navy1960]

I can see that those of you who fooled into preying at alter of man made global warming cannot open your eyes to the fact that this is not settled science. So rather than ask yourself, "why would so many scientists call this into question" some make blanket statements that they are paid by the oil undustry. So if I were to say, that a whole host of environmental groups paid scientists to speak , or to sit on their boards. then of course their conclusions would not be called into question using the same logic correct? The fact is man made global warming is NOT SETTLED science and the debate is in the scientific community as to the effects of CO2 on atmospheric Global Warming, I'm sorry of this FACT upsets all of you who blindly follow the Global Warming mantra. I actually feel bad for you, because by doing so you actually support the narrowing of possibilities of mankind. This is not science , it's cult behavior and to attack the reputations of scientists from MIT, to Harvard and all across the world as being paid by some oil based lobby is an insult to the good works that a LOT of these people perform and shows a narrowminded view of science. By attacking the scientist and not their conclusions all you eventually do is show that you support a view that strangles your fellow man and limits the progress of science. So what I might suggest is that you who support man made global warming look beyond the bounds of Dr. Mann and the IPCC and Al Gore and make your own conclusions and not have them made for you..

On Tuesday, Spencer spoke about his book, “Climate Confusion,” to members of the John Locke Foundation, a Raleigh think tank that advocates for smaller government.

“Scientists need money, and they need to have pet theories,” said Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. “And who wouldn’t want to save the Earth?”

Spencer said scientists are paid to find that global warming is caused by humans. “If you’re paid to find something, you’re going to find it,” he told about 80 people in a Holiday Inn ballroom.

Spencer agrees that humans are creating more carbon dioxide, but he doesn’t agree it’s causing climate change.

“This is a philosophical idea that CO2 is bad,” Spencer said.

Instead, Spencer said, the Earth naturally heats up over a period of time and then cools. He showed histories of the Earth’s temperature fluctuating over hundreds of years and said the planet hasn’t warmed in seven years.

Bill Chameides, dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, said Spencer’s arguments are what magicians call “ignoratio elenchi” or logical fallacy.

“We’ve looked at every possible form of heat, including clouds, and the only source of heat is greenhouse gases,” he said, adding it’s insulting that Spencer would suggest scientists are paid to come to this conclusion. “Scientists make their reputation on debunking theories.”

So if someone who disagress with a Global Warming skeptic suggests that that it's insulting then perhaps you might want to look at that because the person who said it is acually someone who supports the man made global warming theory.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I can see that those of you who fooled into preying at alter of man made global warming cannot open your eyes to the fact that this is not settled science.

Nobody claims that there is no disagreement over the details about climate change and its mechanisms - but to imply that these arguments are calling the entire concept into question is absurd.

No credible scientific body in the world denies global warming. Not one. Most of them also say that burning fossil fuels is a major factor. How could all of these organizations want to "strangle their fellow man" and "limit the progress of science?"

 

[Navy1960]

I can see that those of you who fooled into preying at alter of man made global warming cannot open your eyes to the fact that this is not settled science.

Nobody claims that there is no disagreement over the details about climate change and its mechanisms - but to imply that these arguments are calling the entire concept into question is absurd.

No credible scientific body in the world denies global warming. Not one. Most of them also say that burning fossil fuels is a major factor. How could all of these organizations want to "strangle their fellow man" and "limit the progress of science?"

So all the institutions that the scintists that have called this into question are not credible? In fact several members of the IPCC even call the science into question. The fact is the IPCC is not made up of just climate scientists, it's made up of a whole host of scientists from different disciplines. I happen to think that MIT,Harvard, ASU, UoA, Universtity of Tokoyo, UAB, and many others are credible institutions. I stand my the assertion that anyone who would stand by a statement that "man made global warming is settled science and the debate is over" limits the possiblities of mankind and in fact do more damage to the environment than those that would advocate letting all our resources be applied and conclusions be questioned so that mankind may benefit. When you limit possibilites you also narrow possibilites. Want a good example, let's take coal, while coal is a source of energy that contributes to air pollution to simply dismiss the technology and advocate its demise or advocate cardon sequestration which in a lot of cases is more harmful to the environment than nuclear waste is narrowing the possibilites of mankind. It's not applying science to a solution, it's taking a conclusion and limiting possibilites based on that conclusion. Again, I don't get angry at those that support the man made global warming issue, I actually pity them more than anything else, as they will if they succeed a nation that is a 3rd world backwater at the expense of their fellow citizens all based on a science that is not settled by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I can see that those of you who fooled into preying at alter of man made global warming cannot open your eyes to the fact that this is not settled science.

Nobody claims that there is no disagreement over the details about climate change and its mechanisms - but to imply that these arguments are calling the entire concept into question is absurd.

No credible scientific body in the world denies global warming. Not one. Most of them also say that burning fossil fuels is a major factor. How could all of these organizations want to "strangle their fellow man" and "limit the progress of science?"

So all the institutions that the scintists that have called this into question are not credible? In fact several members of the IPCC even call the science into question. The fact is the IPCC is not made up of just climate scientists, it's made up of a whole host of scientists from different disciplines.

The other important fact is that the ones who are doing the questioning are in the minority.

I happen to think that MIT,Harvard, ASU, UoA, Universtity of Tokoyo, UAB, and many others are credible institutions.

None of which has come forward as an institution and denounced global warming as a fraud. See the difference?

Again, I don't get angry at those that support the man made global warming issue, I actually pity them more than anything else, as they will if they succeed a nation that is a 3rd world backwater at the expense of their fellow citizens all based on a science that is not settled by any stretch of the imagination.

False dilemma.

There are plenty of ways to generate energy that don't burn fossil fuels. Try again.

 

[Navy1960]

The other important fact is that the ones who are doing the questioning are in the minority

So, because there are at the current time more than 30,000 scientists calling into question the IPCC findings and man made global warming, and the fact they are in the minority by a small number makes them wrong? I see, so all those who were in the majority about the earth being the center of the universe and the small minority that did not agree with this made them wrong? Your logic is not one based on science, it's more one of there's more of us so were right because there are more of us. In fact, the very nature of science is to question and this one is no different. Your statement is meaningless when it comes to climate change.

None of which has come forward as an institution and denounced global warming as a fraud. See the difference?

Again, most if not all these scientists work for educational institutions and in general most of those funded through public funding. An educational institution should be not have an opnion on the matter at all and as for the assertion..

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center


Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.


Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University


Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University


Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia


Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory


Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center


John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA


H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM


Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois


Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University


Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute


Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director


Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service


Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University


Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services


Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force


Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist


Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service


Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board


Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology


Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society


Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation


Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.


William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University


David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist


Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.


Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center


Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University


David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography


Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma


Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist


Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM


Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College


James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research


Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering


Brian Sussman, Meteorologist


Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society


H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist


Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University


Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist


William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory


Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project

False dilemma.

There are plenty of ways to generate energy that don't burn fossil fuels. Try again.

There is plenty of evidence , in fact overwheleming evidence to suggest that by implementing a carbon cap and trade scheme will lead to economic disaster. In fact let's look at the so called" green jobs that it intends to create, those technologies that it favors for energy over others are produced in large numbers in places like China,Japan, Spain. etc. So we will as a nation accomplish with this legislation adding to the deficit an additional 1 trillion dollars, that will lead to job creation in those nations to supply those mandated technologies to be shipped to this country, Thus leading this nation to be more dependant financially to others and less able to compete as our manufacturing base dwindles as a result of ever increasing standards imposed by environmentalist stupidity. In fact, I can point to virtually nothing economically that environmental legislation has led to too. If you wish to point to hybrid cars, then I will point out the worlds leading producer of batteries for those cars is in China where they have no environmental regulations. Bottom line, the aim of the environmental supporters is to borrow money while in debt to put into place legislation that would burden this nation, that will lead to it's ultimate demise as an economic leader. If that is the goal then that one you will accomplish .

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

You keep dancing around the 800-pound gorilla in the room by bringing up trade-and-cap, quotes that are nearly 20 years old, and whatever else you can think of.

Now. Yes or No: Are ALL the scientific bodies I listed in post 110 controlled by "environmental activists?" Are any of them, that you can single out and name?

 

[KittenKoder]

You keep dancing around the 800-pound gorilla in the room by bringing up trade-and-cap, quotes that are nearly 20 years old, and whatever else you can think of.

Now. Yes or No: Are ALL the scientific bodies I listed in post 110 controlled by "environmental activists?" Are any of them, that you can single out and name?

First, even if only half of them are, it wouldn't matter because there are a few thousand that say GW is a hoax but are ignored, why do you ignore the majority of sceintists for just a few "special" ones?

Secondly, it's not the individuals that are "controlled", its who funds them that decides what their reports say. Environuts started that pointing that out by saying that the reports released by those who got funding from "big oil" were altered to suit their desires, why is it so hard to see that the same holds true for the GW supporters?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

You keep dancing around the 800-pound gorilla in the room by bringing up trade-and-cap, quotes that are nearly 20 years old, and whatever else you can think of.

Now. Yes or No: Are ALL the scientific bodies I listed in post 110 controlled by "environmental activists?" Are any of them, that you can single out and name?

First, even if only half of them are, it wouldn't matter because there are a few thousand that say GW is a hoax but are ignored, why do you ignore the majority of sceintists for just a few "special" ones?

How about because they're actually not the majority?

Secondly, it's not the individuals that are "controlled", its who funds them that decides what their reports say. Environuts started that pointing that out by saying that the reports released by those who got funding from "big oil" were altered to suit their desires, why is it so hard to see that the same holds true for the GW supporters?

Obviously the quasi-scientists will come up with whatever conclusion the patron wants. However, no respected scientists operate that way. Their funding sources understand that whatever the findings turn out to be, they are what they are. The world already knows what most of the respected scientists say about GW, but hey, you're free to do the math to confirm it.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm not dancing around anything here , in fact it's you who are stuck in a myopic world that worships at the alter of man made global warming. So let me be frank here for you , every single group that supports man made global warming is an agenda based group, so then why would I need to address your posting as to the merits of those groups? If you like I'd be happy to discuss the EDF,WWF, IPCC, and a host of others with you and can state catagorically that they are focused on an agenda that has no real benefit for mankind but rather are cult organizations that worship a religion known as man made global warming and do not allow on the issue. I would like to point out to you a letter written by Chris Landsea to his associates at the IPCC..

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

So before you make blanket statements on science , perhaps you should look at the real community of scientists and see that the debate is far from over and is in fact playing itself out every single day. To make policy on a science that is not settled or on incomplete research because these cult groups aka environmental groups wish it to be that way is to advocate for a disaster for mankind and not for it's benefit.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'm not dancing around anything here , in fact it's you who are stuck in a myopic world that worships at the alter of man made global warming. So let me be frank here for you , every single group that supports man made global warming is an agenda based group, so then why would I need to address your posting as to the merits of those groups?

What "agenda" are all these groups based on? If you make a "blanket statement" like this, you had best offer up some evidence to support you if you want to maintain any shred of credibility.

 

[Old Rocks]

The other important fact is that the ones who are doing the questioning are in the minority

So, because there are at the current time more than 30,000 scientists calling into question the IPCC findings and man made global warming, and the fact they are in the minority by a small number makes them wrong? I see, so all those who were in the majority about the earth being the center of the universe and the small minority that did not agree with this made them wrong? Your logic is not one based on science, it's more one of there's more of us so were right because there are more of us. In fact, the very nature of science is to question and this one is no different. Your statement is meaningless when it comes to climate change.

None of which has come forward as an institution and denounced global warming as a fraud. See the difference?

Again, most if not all these scientists work for educational institutions and in general most of those funded through public funding. An educational institution should be not have an opnion on the matter at all and as for the assertion..

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center


Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.


Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University


Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University


Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia


Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory


Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center


John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA


H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM


Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois


Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University


Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute


Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director


Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service


Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University


Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services


Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force


Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist


Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service


Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board


Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology


Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society


Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation


Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.


William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University


David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist


Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.


Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center


Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University


David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography


Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma


Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist


Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM


Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College


James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research


Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering


Brian Sussman, Meteorologist


Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society


H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist


Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University


Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist


William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory


Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project

False dilemma.

There are plenty of ways to generate energy that don't burn fossil fuels. Try again.

There is plenty of evidence , in fact overwheleming evidence to suggest that by implementing a carbon cap and trade scheme will lead to economic disaster. In fact let's look at the so called" green jobs that it intends to create, those technologies that it favors for energy over others are produced in large numbers in places like China,Japan, Spain. etc. So we will as a nation accomplish with this legislation adding to the deficit an additional 1 trillion dollars, that will lead to job creation in those nations to supply those mandated technologies to be shipped to this country, Thus leading this nation to be more dependant financially to others and less able to compete as our manufacturing base dwindles as a result of ever increasing standards imposed by environmentalist stupidity. In fact, I can point to virtually nothing economically that environmental legislation has led to too. If you wish to point to hybrid cars, then I will point out the worlds leading producer of batteries for those cars is in China where they have no environmental regulations. Bottom line, the aim of the environmental supporters is to borrow money while in debt to put into place legislation that would burden this nation, that will lead to it's ultimate demise as an economic leader. If that is the goal then that one you will accomplish .

30,000 scientists? With no link to back up your assertation? Of course not. Because that link would lead one back to the charlatans at OISM.

Navy, you are being dishonest!

And you list Singer, the tobacco company whore. Lindzen who was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify in their behalf in front of Congress.

Very simply, every scientific society, every national acedemy of science, and every major university in the world, no matter what the political type of government, has stated that AGW is a fact and is a clear and present danger. There are millions of scientists in the world. The fact that there are a few that disagree with the evidence does not change the overwhelming consensus on global warming.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch

 

[Navy1960]

Lets see where to begin, first before I post it again, for the 100th time a listing of scientists that have called into question man made global warming first let me address the agenda based issue...

With Congress preparing to debate climate legislation, environmentalists and their allies are spending millions on ad campaigns aimed at building public support for a cap-and-trade bill and scoring early political points.


While campaign-style advertising on legislative issues is nothing new, the ad buys are coming weeks before either chamber is likely to move a comprehensive bill to the floor. Both proponents and critics of the climate measure say the early ad blitz indicates that environmentalists know they have their work cut out for them in convincing the public and lawmakers to buy into the capping and trading of greenhouse gas emissions.

Enviro groups' ad blitz aims for early cap-and-trade leverage - NYTimes.com

"This is real this time. Unlike last year, we have quick, comprehensive movement in the House, we have senators digging into the issues, and we have a White House that is asking with the cap on carbon," said Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defense Fund. "It is go time right now."


The Environmental Defense Fund started airing its ads more than a week ago, and Kreindler said he believes the message -- that climate change legislation can create jobs -- has begun to be accepted by the American public, particularly in manufacturing areas hit hard by a severe recession.


Environmentalists say a solid majority of voters is on their side and strongly favors not only a strong move toward renewable energy but also implementation of mandatory cap on carbon emissions. That is backed by recent polling that shows no reduction in public support for addressing climate change.

The ads are airing, environmentalists say, because they want to move early in light of what they see as a unique opportunity to move the legislation this year.

"This is real this time. Unlike last year, we have quick, comprehensive movement in the House, we have senators digging into the issues, and we have a White House that is asking with the cap on carbon," said Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defense Fund. "It is go time right now."
Lobbying: Enviro ad blitz aims for early cap-and-trade leverage -- 04/20/2009 -- www.eenews.net

United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. More >

USCAP Members Include:
AES
Alcoa
Alstom
Boston Scientific Corporation
BP America
Caterpillar
Chrysler
ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense Fund
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
FPL Group
General Electric
General Motors Corporation
Johnson & Johnson
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
NRG Energy
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
World Resources Institute
United States Climate Action Partnership

So yes, I would call these groups agenda based and it's obvious what that agenda is. It's to promote a set of chosen technologies that they deem to be environmentally friendly regardless of the economic impact on the citizens of this nation. They are in partnership with major corporations, some of which are the very fossil fuel companies that you wish to eliminate. This is a for profit scheme using unproven science as it's sword or marketing tool , to gen up support for an agenda. So yes. these are agenda based groups and in most case all of them lack the courage of the very convictions that they speak so boldly of. Want an example, here is a small one, each of these groups come together several times a year all over the world to hold climate change conferences. How do you think they get there? They use fossil fuels that jet aircraft burn in order to do it, they write reports on computers that are made from plastics made from fossill fuels. So if they really had the courage of their convictions then they would rid themselves of this technology in total and begin with themselves. Now on to the scientist issue again... not that it will do any good because, in the enviro-world as long as a scientist is paid to give a seminar in support of man made global warming thats fine, but heaven forbid that someone would pay another scientist to speak on their views.

 

[Navy1960]

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased

Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellitesTimothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]
Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[11]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[12]

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus viewIndividuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting that some of these scientist represent a broad spectrum of fields isnt it? Your painting with a broad brush on the global warming issue my friend. You seem to be under the impression that every University has settled the sceince of global warming when it clearly has not. In fact, the debate is raging quite hotly as to the merits of the 4th assesment and as can be seen by my previous post from one of it's authors even he is calling into question some of it's assertions. I submit that you and others that support the man made global wamring issue are being limited in your vision and you have every right to do so , however the nature of science is to question and what you and others are doing is supporting the notion that there is no more debate because you have more people on your side. Did you know that the IPCC is not made up of all scientists , in fact it is mostly made up of Govt. officials, and anyone who wishes to join. So while you may think that IPCC assesments represent a large number of scientist it doesn't..
IPCC Membership is open to all member countries of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO). More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries typically participate in the IPCC process. Scientists are independently nominated for participation in the Panel by their own governments. The fields of Earth system science, meteorology, ecology, economics, engineering, the social sciences and many more are represented. A listing of the diverse team of contributors developing each Assessment Report is included in each report’s appendix.
To learn who’s who on the IPCC, visit
Facts | Participants

So when you try to somehow make the claim that scientist that oppose these findings are somehow paid off by whatever groups keep in mind that the door swings both ways on that claim.

Further, if your claim is the oft touted, DailyKOS, Huffington Post, dribble about how these scientist are not credible because they are paid off or are not in the field holds no merit as well. Why, because the IPCC assesments that you and others blindly follow are formulated by a whole host of people that are NOT in the field of climatology as well. So its rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

Global Warming Petition Project

I'm sure you will look at the list and find someone somewhere connected with the oil and gas industry but I encourage you to look at my previous posting and see some of the companies that those you support are in bed with prior to doing so. The moral of the story here is this. science is at it's core the ability to question and when that ability is taken away because of a belief structure if becomes nothing more than a cult.