M.I.T. Professor: CO2 has little impact on global temperature changes

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

I found the article a very interesting read. This guy from MIT has some good points and uses science to back them up.

The document looks like its real long but many of those pages are charts/graphs.


And before anyone jumps down my throat i'm just reporting what I came across, feel free to disagree with the link all you want but remember that I didn't write it, i just found it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Christopher Monkton is not from MIT. He has also declared unequivecly that global warming has stopped.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

We shall see this next year if his hypothesis can stand even one year before being falsified by reality. In the meantime, others have rebutted much of what he has stated.

Lord Christopher Monckton — OSS Foundation

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. No, I only jump down peoples throats when they use sites like the OISM site that are out beyond the fringe. Monkton's educational degree is in education, however, he seems to have many talents. His lack of understanding of normal variation in climate seems to have led him to some errors and predictions that will shortly falsify his hypothesis of a cooling climate.

 

[JohnStOnge]

We shall see this next year if his hypothesis can stand even one year before being falsified by reality.

All other things aside, there is no way his outlooks can be "falsified" by what happens in one year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Monkton says we are in a cooling period, but the temperature for 2010 is above 1998 and 2005, it is pretty obvious that we are still warming, and rapidly, at that.

 

[hjmick]

Monkton says we are in a cooling period, but the temperature for 2010 is above 1998 and 2005, it is pretty obvious that we are still warming, and rapidly, at that.

Uh... Maybe this is a typo, perhaps not, but how can the temperature for 2010 be higher than it was in 1998 and 2005?

 

[Old Rocks]

Monkton says we are in a cooling period, but the temperature for 2010 is above 1998 and 2005, it is pretty obvious that we are still warming, and rapidly, at that.

Uh... Maybe this is a typo, perhaps not, but how can the temperature for 2010 be higher than it was in 1998 and 2005?

OK, you got me on that one. That should have read, "but if the temperture for 2010"

 

[hjmick]

Monkton says we are in a cooling period, but the temperature for 2010 is above 1998 and 2005, it is pretty obvious that we are still warming, and rapidly, at that.

Uh... Maybe this is a typo, perhaps not, but how can the temperature for 2010 be higher than it was in 1998 and 2005?

OK, you got me on that one. That should have read, "but if the temperture for 2010"

Just checking. I just was wondering if there were some projections you may have meant to reference, or perhaps you were from the future.

Carry on.

 

[Oddball]

We shall see this next year if his hypothesis can stand even one year before being falsified by reality.

All other things aside, there is no way his outlooks can be "falsified" by what happens in one year.

None of this hokum can truly be falsified, either way, because nobody -but nobody- can possibly take into account the millions-cum-billions of organic and inorganic variables.

 

[code1211]

LOL. No, I only jump down peoples throats when they use sites like the OISM site that are out beyond the fringe. Monkton's educational degree is in education, however, he seems to have many talents. His lack of understanding of normal variation in climate seems to have led him to some errors and predictions that will shortly falsify his hypothesis of a cooling climate.

So, to be clear, if a person makes a prediction and it is shown to be wrong, that person is no longer to be believed in anything that he says?

Dr. Hansen, your career is on the line with this one.

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL. No, I only jump down peoples throats when they use sites like the OISM site that are out beyond the fringe. Monkton's educational degree is in education, however, he seems to have many talents. His lack of understanding of normal variation in climate seems to have led him to some errors and predictions that will shortly falsify his hypothesis of a cooling climate.

So, to be clear, if a person makes a prediction and it is shown to be wrong, that person is no longer to be believed in anything that he says?

Dr. Hansen, your career is on the line with this one.

Oh no, that would mean that none of the global warming predictors ... or any scientist for that matter ... is good at what they do ...


Damn, what is this thing I am typing on then?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We don't even have a grasp on how GRAVITY works once we're past Earth! Have you hear of the Pioneer Anomaly?

Gravity is one of the most fundamental, bedrock things we think we understand and it's subject to forces we don't fully understand SO HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE BE SO SURE ABOUT AGW, unless, of course they're lying to get control of the economy

 

[KittenKoder]

We don't even have a grasp on how GRAVITY works once were past Earth! Have you hear of the Pioneer Anomaly?

Gravity is one of the most fundamental, bedrock things we think we understand and it's subject to forces we don't fully understand SO HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE BE SO SURE ABOUT AGW, unless, of course they're lying to get control of the economy

We have a winner! This is the ugly truth us "lefties" are slowly waking up to.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment comparing skeptics to Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Timothy 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."

"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..."

"The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming."

"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."

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."

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."

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."

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".

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya 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."

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."

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."

"I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".

Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "The truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... About 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."

“It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "There's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor"

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "It is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"

William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

"There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Ivar Giaever, Nobel laureate in physics. At the 58th meeting of Nobel laureates on July 1, 2008 he stated that the global warming became a "new religion" and that the humanity should try to solve real problems instead of trying to prevent global warming "that we can't prevent anyway." Signatory of a letter to the Council of the American Physical Society requesting it to change its position on global warming to include the words, "Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate."

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "Warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... We have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."

Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."

 

[wvpeach]

Co2 might not be the problem . But as anybody who has ever lived in a big city can tell you all those industrial pollutants sure are a problem.

Cleveland, Detroit, San Diego and other large cities find themselves waking up to a haze of smog filled with industrial pollutants. For children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly whose lungs have weakened this is a big big problem and causes countless early deaths.

No way to lie about the issue.

Considering that 99% of America's water ways are so polluted they warn only one fish for consumption per month. And none for pregnant women or sick people. And that is just mercury they ware warning about. Loads of other pollutants are in our water ways.

My family enjoy's Kayaking. . Gone are the days when it's safe to kayak without those damn rubber suits. Because a fall in the water and a open sore can land you with a creepy illness in many water ways in America.

And it's world wide. Think China having to shut down industry for the week before the Olympic's to try to dissipate that black cloud of pollutants that hovers over much of China perpetually.

We have allowed industries to dump their waste into waterways and the air worldwide for decades and it's coming back to bite us .

Now before anybody says , whoa she is anti business.

Not at all I am a business woman. I build homes and own a mortgage company.
But I do it responsibly. As responsibly as can be anyway. We have no good venues for dumping some materials as waste really.

So I am not anti business. What I am is anti let them do as they please.
What I am is anti putting profits over the land , water and skies we and our children need to live on.

Technology has existed for decades that capture's a good bit of industrial pollution.
Wasn't used because it would change profit margins by pennies on the dollar.
That is plain just irresponsible.

So co2 or no co2 , don't kid yourselves, stuff that will kill you, or in a few years your kids and grandkids is being dumped on the land , water and skies in the name of pennies on the dollar profits .

And just imagine that nut case Ron Paul runs on a platform of complete deregulation.
That nut claims we should trust corporations to not pollute on the honor system!
Never mind that literally thousands of cases are proven where companies dump their toxins and run. Loony Ron Paul says we need not try to regulate that. He believes they would do it because it's the right thing to do. Yeah right! And even if they don't Paul says it hurts the free market to regulate business for anything. It's like Ron Paul woke up one day missing half of his brain or something.

Let Ron Paul tell that to the people in Peru who had so much sludge from oil waste dumped on their land the land is now barren and will not grow food and because of contaminated water they are dying of cancer at rates 12 times the average in the world.
Let Ron Paul tell them Shell is really sorry, but what can they expect it's a free market.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yet ... it's all natural stuff to.

 

[rdean]

Republicans are so funny. First, they don't even believe in science. Then, they use differing opinions among scientists to "prove" that this the one or that one is "wrong".

Then,

They insist scientists only work to get "grant" money. When the truth is, scientists make money in all kinds of ways. Like inventing "computers" and "medicines".

And look at what they use that money on. Inventing computers and medicine.

Suppose that it was all a "scam" and they wanted money. What would they use it on? Fantasy trips to the Bahamas? I suspect no. Considering that it takes years to become a scientist. Bernie Madoff became a scam artist in no time at all and he got a lot more money.

I believe they would use the money to make computer models of the existing weather patterns to try to figure out why we just had a tornado in Toronto or why our oceans are the warmest they have ever been.

Of course, Republicans don't have to worry. They have God. God will save us. Just like he saved us on 9/11. Oh wait, he "lifted his veil of protection" because of the gays and feminists.

Ha ha ha ho ho ho tee hee.

 

[KittenKoder]

RDean ... you need to learn a bit more before you assume as much, because that's all you have done.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, Midnight, you can quote a few scientists that disagree with the consensus. However, there are enough scientists, worldwide, that every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major Univiversity in the world state that global warming is happening, is a clear and present danger, and that the GHGs emitted by mankind is the primary cause.

There is nearly as strong a consensus on global waming and it's cause as there is on evolution.