Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming

[red states rule]

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

 

[onedomino]

Interesting article. And also the links supporting the article. I was especially interested in this article:

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Complete article: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651

 

[bobn]

Some on the list don't give reasoning - it's only a list afterall. But the few arguments that are made are lacking.

Dr. Claude Allegre - no reason given

Geologist Bruno Wiskel
Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years."

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.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv
Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere

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/

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans

But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds

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

The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases

This is false

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty - no reason given

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy - no reason given

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas - no reason given

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson
It (temperature) has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air

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

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added.

Absurd

“We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.

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

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm - no reason given

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson
“Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,”

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.

we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

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.

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies

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

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark - no reason given

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer
The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario

Cosmic rays and solar connections again, see above.

 

[bobn]

Interesting article. And also the links supporting the article. I was especially interested in this article:

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:

Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.

Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?

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

 

[red states rule]

Interesting article. And also the links supporting the article. I was especially interested in this article:

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

 

[Birdzeye]

Newsbusters.org? The site that boasts of its agenda to combat "liberal" media bias (but apparently not conservative bias)?

Woudl an impartial source be too much to ask?

 

[loosecannon]

It would seem the myth of gloabl warming is falling apart

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.

 

[red states rule]

Newsbusters.org? The site that boasts of its agenda to combat "liberal" media bias (but apparently not conservative bias)?

Woudl an impartial source be too much to ask?

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!

 

[red states rule]

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.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

 

[red states rule]

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

Now you did it

You posted facts - they won't like it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is summer 1985 through 2006.... same source....


same format



Year

Temperature

Rank
Based on the
Time Period Selected
(1895-2006)*

Rank
Based on the
Period of Record
(1895-2006)*
2006 74.34 deg F 111 111
2005 73.40 deg F 103 103
2004 71.21 deg F 18 18
2003 73.52 deg F 106 106
2002 73.95 deg F 109 109
2001 73.44 deg F 104 104
2000 73.08 deg F 97 97
1999 72.73 deg F 82 82
1998 73.33 deg F 101 101
1997 71.93 deg F 44 44
1996 72.64 deg F 74 74
1995 72.61 deg F 71 71
1994 72.95 deg F 95 95
1993 71.29 deg F 21 21
1992 70.26 deg F 2 2
1991 72.80 deg F 88 88
1990 72.71 deg F 81 81
1989 72.01 deg F 47 47
1988 73.91 deg F 108 108
1987 72.58 deg F 69 69
1986 72.68 deg F 77 77
1985 71.81 deg F 38 38

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What exactly is earth shattering about these two charts? What indicates a horrid life changing warming that will result in flooding and starvation in the next 100 years?

 

[red states rule]

The charts mean nothing

Here is the real reason we have global warming

MSNBC's Mika Miffed Americans Buying SUVs: 'What's Wrong With People?'
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on May 21, 2007 - 16:23.
Don't you dare call Mika Brzezinski a mere newsreader. Beyond simply enunciating words off the teleprompter, the MSNBC host doesn't hesitate to share her [left-leaning] views with viewers, too.

Take a segment that aired at 3:35 pm EDT today on the topic of gasoline prices. Introducing the discussion, Mika expressed her shock and outrage that sales of SUVs have recently risen despite relatively high gas prices. Pouted Mika: "what's wrong with these people? Why do they need them?"

Mika's guest was Tyson Slocum of the liberal Public Citizen group, which is headed by Joan Claybrook, a former Carter administration official. Mika, of course, is the daughter of another Carter administration official, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. A couple members of the extended Carter-administration family, having a friendly chat on a day the former president is making headlines for breaking the unwritten taboo on past White House occupants bashing the incumbent.

By the way, Public Citizen might be the last place people should look for solutions to our energy problems. Among other things, the organization is dedicated to opposing nuclear power, one of the most efficient, safest alternatives to fossil fuels.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12908

 

[bobn]

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.

That's US temperature. The other guy was talking about Global Temperature. Globally April was the 3rd

April 2007 ranked as the third warmest April since records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. The April land surface temperature ranked warmest on record, while ocean surface temperature ranked seventh warmest in the 127-year record. For the January-April year-to-date period, the global surface temperature ranked warmest on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/apr/global.html#Temp

 

[Annie]

Interesting article. And also the links supporting the article. I was especially interested in this article:

Yep, the whole idea of sunspots and solar flares have made me think about causative factors. Good grab!

 

[Annie]

Newsbusters.org? The site that boasts of its agenda to combat "liberal" media bias (but apparently not conservative bias)?

Woudl an impartial source be too much to ask?

Deal with the senate link, please? RSR is RSR, seems he's compelled towards Newsbusters. Maybe he owns stock?

 

[red states rule]

Deal with the senate link, please? RSR is RSR, seems he's compelled towards Newsbusters. Maybe he owns stock?

I do not own stock - I like facts

 

[Bullypulpit]

Newsbusters.org? The site that boasts of its agenda to combat "liberal" media bias (but apparently not conservative bias)?

Woudl an impartial source be too much to ask?

From RSR and his fellow travelers? One may as well expect a pig to grow wings and fly away.

 

[Bern80]

Newsbusters.org? The site that boasts of its agenda to combat "liberal" media bias (but apparently not conservative bias)?

Woudl an impartial source be too much to ask?

Why exactley are they biased? The scientists who came to their findings are somehow biased because newsbusters happened to find their article and print it?