Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by red states rule, May 20, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    It would seem the myth of gloabl warming is falling apart


    Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

    Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

    Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

    The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

    In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

    The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

    for the complete article and list of other scientists who have changed their views

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....2a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id
     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Interesting article. And also the links supporting the article. I was especially interested in this article:

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. bobn
    Offline

    bobn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +13
    Some on the list don't give reasoning - it's only a list afterall. But the few arguments that are made are lacking.

    That's slightly incorrect. The warming occured in the space of about 8000 years. For the last 10,000 years the temperature has been flat, if not slightly declining at a very small rate. Periods of warming and cooling in this time period (medieval warm period, little ice age, todays warming) have little or nothing to do with the temp rise out of the last glacial 18000 years ago, so ti's a very odd point to raise.

    Even if cosmic-rays can have an impact on climate, there has to be a trend for them to have had an impact. The only trend for cosmic rays I have seen for the last 50 years is flat: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/catch/cr3.html. The claim that GCRs can explain recent global warming is never backed up with observations of any trend that would make this possible.

    The impact cosmic rays have on the atmosphere is also still lacking in causative demonstration. Correlation has been shown on geological time scales and causation of some steps has been demonstrated, but there are missing steps in the causative sequence from GCRs to cloud formation.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

    Cosmic rays are there again, see above. No idea what he is refering to by better temperature data for the last century.

    This is false

    That's just tautology: "its warmer because we are coming out of a period when it was colder"

    Absurd

    Aerosol trends have been included in climate models for a while now.

    So he's somehow missed the lack of correlation between recent temperature increase and sunspot trends. You'd think if you had a reason to doubt recent global warming you'd check it actually applied to the period in question.

    The world isn't expected to be heating up any more than it is. Plus we are only about one third to doubling co2 from pre-industrial baseline, so he hasn't even got that basic figure correct.

    Jaworowski many years ago was making arguments that the ice core record is flawed and doesn't represent the actual co2 history. These arguments did not survive scientific scrutiny. For some more information: http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

    Cosmic rays and solar connections again, see above.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. bobn
    Offline

    bobn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +13
    Throughout the list many of the scientists say they think the warming is caused by cosmic rays changing cloud cover. But if this is true then that only affects earth which has clouds. The other planets should not be warming in that case. So there's a contradiction between the sceintists in the two articles.

    From the article you linked to:
    The mauna minimum they talk about is around 1800 and coincides with very low sunspot counts, the rise in sunspot counts in the early 20th century also coincides well with the warming seen then. But the sunspot trend has been flat over the last 50 years, and that is one reason why it is hard to believe that the sun could be causing our current warming. If the next sunspot cycle (over the next 10 years) is also not especially high, yet temperature continues rising, then that's going to seal it in my opinion.
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/image/annual.gif
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Canadian Front Page: ‘Experts Say Many of the Claims in Al Gore’s Film Are Wrong’
    Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 20, 2007 - 11:02.
    Here’s something that is almost a metaphysical certitude: no major American newspaper, in the midst of all the current global warming hysteria, would dare do a front-page feature article questioning the merits of Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    Yet, there it was Saturday, covering almost two-thirds of the front page of Canada’s National Post, right smack in the middle, with a big picture of the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, surrounded by the shocking headline:

    Even Climate Change Experts Say Many of the Claims in Al Gore’s Film Are Wrong.

    So How Did it Become Required Classroom Viewing?

    Think you’ll see that some day on the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post, or USA Today?

    While you ponder, the article was just as skeptical (emphasis added throughout):

    First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.

    "I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on."

    Amazing. The article continued:

    Even scientists who back Mr. Gore's message admit they're uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with "science" in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous.

    His teachers are not much more discerning. "They don't know there's another side to the argument," he says. McKenzie's mother was outraged to find out that Mr. Gore's film was being presented as fact in her son's classroom. "This is just being poured into kids' brains instead of letting them know there's a debate going on," she says. "An educational system falls down when they start taking one side."

    But Mr. Gore's filmed climate-change lecture is showing up in classrooms across Canada, frequently unaccompanied by critical analysis or a discussion of competing theories. "One of the teachers at my kid's school showed it and he even said ahead of time, 'There is some propaganda in this,' " says Tim Patterson, a Carleton University earth sciences professor. "I said to him, 'You even knew this was a propaganda film, and you still showed it in your classroom?' " The weirdest part: It was the gym teacher.

    If you have children in junior or high school, there is a good chance they have been shown An Inconvenient Truth in school - or they will be soon.

    Shocking. Regardless of the admitted – and not admitted – flaws in this film, educators in Canada are showing it to students without any balance from the other side of the debate.

    How disgraceful.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/12883
     
  6. Birdzeye
    Offline

    Birdzeye Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    61
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Newsbusters.org? The site that boasts of its agenda to combat "liberal" media bias (but apparently not conservative bias)? :lol:

    Woudl an impartial source be too much to ask?
     
  7. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    But the reality of global warming is alive and well and devouring your cerebral cortex.

    I heard on the FM this AM that this April was the third warmest April since recording keeping began, The WARMEST April over land since recording keeping began and that Siberia was 9 degrees above normal for the month.

    9 degrees above normal for a continent wide area for an entire month is an astonishing weather deviation.

    Global warming is now knawing at your frontal lobes.
     
  8. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    What bias!

    They have the gall to point put what the liberal meida leaves out of their story and how they reported similiar stories when if involves Democrats

    What nerve!
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    WRONG!

    The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,899
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,970
    Lets see if this works....

    This is the winter period..... chart is Year average temp and then rank over the entire time recorded ( said chart said it is missing 1 year) From the source listed by Red State Rules.



    Based on the
    Time Period Selected
    (1895-2007)*

    Rank
    Based on the
    Period of Record
    (1895-2007)*
    2007 33.88 deg F 77 77
    2006 35.94 deg F 102 102
    2005 35.77 deg F 101 101
    2004 33.48 deg F 65 65
    2003 34.06 deg F 83 83
    2002 36.22 deg F 108 108
    2001 31.57 deg F 25 25
    2000 37.06 deg F 112 112
    1999 36.92 deg F 111 111
    1998 36.60 deg F 109 109
    1997 33.96 deg F 78 78
    1996 33.47 deg F 64 64
    1995 36.10 deg F 105 105
    1994 32.38 deg F 39 39
    1993 31.56 deg F 24 24
    1992 36.87 deg F 110 110
    1991 33.82 deg F 75 75
    1990 34.20 deg F 84 84
    1989 32.70 deg F 45 45
    1988 32.59 deg F 42 42
    1987 35.06 deg F 96 96
    1986 33.64 deg F 70 70
    1985 31.20 deg F 17 17
     

Share This Page