97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Andrew2382]

its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.

Just some contributors to the report

Frano Battaglia- Professor of chemical physics and Enviromental Chemistry

Bob Carter- Paleoclimatologist and professor

Richard Courtney- Engineer for fuel use and climate consequence

Joseph D'Aleo- Meteorolgist elected councilor of AMS, first director of meteorolofy for the Weather Channel

Fred Goldberg- PHD Polar expert, organizer of 2006 Stockholm Climate Conference

Vincent Gray- PHD (Chemistry) publisger of New Zealand Climate Newsletter

Klauss Heiss- PHD Economist

Craid Idso- PHD Meteorology

Madhav Khandekar-- PHD Meteorologist, formelly with Enviorment Canada, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007

Fred Singer- Atmorspheric Physicist and former director of US Weather Satellite Service

Anton Uriarte- Professor of Climatology PHD


Yeah, you're right no scientists...its ok ignore the report and dont read it cause it could prove you wrong

I see you gave up providing links, because every single wingnut link you guys have been putting up has been shredded.

But, I can't believe you're trying to sneak this shit in again. Did you really think we wouldn't look up the "qualifications" of your scientists.

Chris already shredded Fred Singer. That guy has no credibility in the international science community.

And for fucks sake, your trying to sneak in "Bob Carter" again? Skull pilot tried to pass him off, and I shredded "Bob Carter". And skull pilot dissapeared from the thread.

"Bob Carter" is a adjunct professor at the "James Cook University" Who the fuck has ever heard of "James Cook University"??

Do you know what an adjunct professor is? Its a dude who works part time and isn't on tenure track. Because he wasn't good enough to be offered a full time tenured faculty postion.

And his degree is in paleontology. Get fucking real man. He's not a real climate scientist and he is not considered anywhere remotely close to being an internationally recognized expert in the field.

lol, more like I don't check the site every 10 seconds like you and I lose track of threads you fucking moron.


Yes Fred Singer has no credentials

Siegfried Frederick Singer (born 27 September 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]

Singer invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites[3][4][5] Singer was Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, Chief Scientist, United States Department of Transportation from 1987 to 1989, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1971, and the first Director of the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center, where upon his leave he received a Gold Medal for Distinguished Federal Service.[6][2][7] In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami.[6][8]

yes you are right...no credentials

you fuckin moron

 

[Chris]

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]

In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian."[41] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[42]

Fred Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andrew2382]

lol and?

ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon

thats all you got?

fail

Union of Concerned Scientists-

Scientists formed the organization to "initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance" and "devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems

Physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford have criticized the UCS for opposing a United States-run nuclear waste reprocessing program. The UCS had claimed that the separation of weapons-usable plutonium from spent nuclear fuel could "make it easier for terrorists to acquire the material for making a nuclear bomb," but Marsh and Stanford argued that "reactor fuel is going to be recycled, whether we like it or not."[28]

Capitalism and free market-advocacy groups have also criticized the UCS for its stance on environmental and other regulatory issues. TimesWatch.org, a project of Media Research Center (MRC), has called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist group".[29] L. Brent Bozell, founder of the MRC, which catalogs what it asserts is liberal bias in the United States mass media, has claimed that the UCS is "a left-wing activist organization...trying to position itself as being some kind of objective, centrist, moderate, apolitical entity when it is nothing of the sort."[30] Capital Research Center, a conservative non-profit that studies left-political organizations, criticized the UCS as having "policy positions that are predictably those of a far-left pressure group".[31]

S. Fred Singer, physicist, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, NewsMax science advisor, and founder of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a group that disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke,[32] has said that the UCS has "zero credibility as a scientific organization." Singer has been labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS

In a 2005 article for Jewish World Review, consumer reporter, author, and co-anchor for the television newsmagazine 20/20 John Stossel commented, "The key word in 'Union of Concerned Scientists' isn't 'Scientists' — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — but 'Concerned,' and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing."
yeah, they arent biased right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#History
you fuckin hack

 

[Red Dawn]

Yes Fred Singer has no credentials

Siegfried Frederick Singer (born 27 September 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]

Singer invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites[3][4][5] Singer was Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, Chief Scientist, United States Department of Transportation from 1987 to 1989, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1971, and the first Director of the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center, where upon his leave he received a Gold Medal for Distinguished Federal Service.[6][2][7] In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami.[6][8]

yes you are right...no credentials

you fuckin moron

Again, you didn't provide the link, because your Wiki link has some rather embarrasing revelations about Fred Singer that cast in doubt his credibility, and perhaps his sanity.

Your Wiki link:



He's a professional denialist and flat earther, from climate change, to second hand smoke, to ozone depletion:

Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming[11],[12][13] the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion,[14] and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[15][16] Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute,[17] the American Council on Science and Health,[18] Frontiers of Freedom,[19] the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis,[20] and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded.

He invented some gizmos for satellites in the 1950, but hasn't had a real academic or research postion in nearly two decades, and he's never, not once published any original scientific research in the field of climate change in any peer reviewed scientific journal.

In the 1940s and 50s Singer designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone.[1]
Previous government and academic positions:[1]
Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1953-62)
Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64)
Founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70)
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71)
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94)
Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89)

And he believed the Martian Moon of Phobos was evidently contructed by space aliens:

Space and exploration
In 1960, Singer was one of several scientists who speculated that the Martian moon Phobos was artificial in origin.

 

[Red Dawn]

Just checking it to see if, after nearly a week, one of our esteemed flat-earthers has been able to provide a link to an established national or international science body, or to an actual climate scientist with a PhD who is currently doing research on climate change and getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.



.......nope.

Still nothing more than links to a rightwing senator's website, to some "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon, to some righwing political websites I've never heard of, and to a handfull of scientists who don't actually do any original reseach in climate change and publish the results in bonafide peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Although one of the flat earth scientists thinks that second hand smoking is a liberal myth, and that space aliens evidently constructed the martian moon of Phobos.

How dissapointing. This has been yet another utter and catastrophic failure of flat earthers to provide anything robust and substantion to back up the things they heard on Sean Hannity's show.

 

[Andrew2382]

yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl

you fuckin loon

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didn’t attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didn’t have any of the falderal that attracts the “journalists” and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of world’s leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

Instead of David Suzuki, who isn’t a climatologist, he’s a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who don’t participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.&#8221, the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earth’s temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy.

 

[Andrew2382]

yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl

you fuckin loon

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didn’t attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didn’t have any of the falderal that attracts the “journalists” and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of world’s leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

Instead of David Suzuki, who isn’t a climatologist, he’s a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who don’t participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”), the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earth’s temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy.

 

[Chris]

2008 International Conference on Climate Change...

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]

The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so." The conference invitation identified its goal as "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science."[2]

The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend," according to the RealClimate blog.[3]

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change - SourceWatch

 

[Andrew2382]

lol getting info from source watch lmao

why not go to move on.org you hack

SourceWatch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia), is an internet site which is a collaborative project of the left-wing Center for Media and Democracy (CMD

 

[del]

2008 International Conference on Climate Change...

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]

The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so." The conference invitation identified its goal as "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science."[2]

The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend," according to the RealClimate blog.[3]

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change - SourceWatch

well no wonder al gore didn't come, he requires $35K/speech to save the world.

 

[Chris]

2008 International Conference on Climate Change...

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]

The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so." The conference invitation identified its goal as "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science."[2]

The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend," according to the RealClimate blog.[3]

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change - SourceWatch

well no wonder al gore didn't come, he requires $35K/speech to save the world.

For $1,000 and a weekend at the Marriott, I'll denounce global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university agrees with the overwhelming consensus on AGW. Yet you people throw up flakes, paid hacks, and the whores of the energy companies.

Have a look at the peer reviewed scientific journals. How many articles are there that are offering evidence that the warming has nothing to do with man's actions? How many articles are there that offer evidence that the warming is slowing?

So, you are saying that all the peer reviewed scientific journals from every nation in the world are in on a plot to fool all of us? If not, what are you saying?

 

[Red Dawn]

yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl

you fuckin loon

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didn’t attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didn’t have any of the falderal that attracts the “journalists” and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of world’s leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

Instead of David Suzuki, who isn’t a climatologist, he’s a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who don’t participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.&#8221, the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earth’s temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy.

You're in deep doo-doo, and your opinon would be considered borderline crackpot or partisan hack, based on your performance and your sources on this thread.

Look at the link you just gave us.

TheLandofTheFree.net/conservativeopinion.com


You've got to be fucking kidding. Chris and old rocks have been giving you links to the most established, venerated, and admired scientific organizations in the history of the planet, not least of which is the U.S. National Acadecmy of Sciences.

And your reduced to giving us "Thelandofthefree.net", "heartland.org" and some crackpot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.



Pathetic. A simply horrible and laughable showing by the esteemed members of the USMB flat earth society.

 

[jreeves]

yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl

you fuckin loon

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didn’t attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didn’t have any of the falderal that attracts the “journalists” and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of world’s leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

Instead of David Suzuki, who isn’t a climatologist, he’s a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who don’t participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”), the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earth’s temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy.

You're in deep doo-doo, and your opinon would be considered borderline crackpot or partisan hack, based on your performance and your sources on this thread.

Look at the link you just gave us.

TheLandofTheFree.net/conservativeopinion.com


You've got to be fucking kidding. Chris and old rocks have been giving you links to the most established, venerated, and admired scientific organizations in the history of the planet, not least of which is the U.S. National Acadecmy of Sciences.

And your reduced to giving us "Thelandofthefree.net", "heartland.org" and some crackpot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.



Pathetic. A simply horrible and laughable showing by the esteemed members of the USMB flat earth society.

Lmao...

Just a few "flat earthers"...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an ‘adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded.

 

[jreeves]

Just checking it to see if, after nearly a week, one of our esteemed flat-earthers has been able to provide a link to an established national or international science body, or to an actual climate scientist with a PhD who is currently doing research on climate change and getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.


.......nope.

Still nothing more than links to a rightwing senator's website, to some "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon, to some righwing political websites I've never heard of, and to a handfull of scientists who don't actually do any original reseach in climate change and publish the results in bonafide peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Although one of the flat earth scientists thinks that second hand smoking is a liberal myth, and that space aliens evidently constructed the martian moon of Phobos.

How dissapointing. This has been yet another utter and catastrophic failure of flat earthers to provide anything robust and substantion to back up the things they heard on Sean Hannity's show.

Here you go...
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was
agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.
The Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the
difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties,
knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding
data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and
the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in
many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local
land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets,
such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The
actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of
known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented
changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a
variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis
that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant
warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and
merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical
arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive
as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations
of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale
processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation
of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate
regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations
cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated
with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the
uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or
modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty
as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether
or not such change is a good or bad thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

At Woods Hole, eh? Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is a very respected scientific organization. Here is their opinion on global warming;

Global Warming : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[manu1959]

remember when 97% of scientists believed the world was flat...

 

[Old Rocks]

Fraser Institute? LOL!

History
In 1974, a group of academics and business executives, concerned about big government, founded the Fraser Institute. [[1]]

At the time, there were concerns about the institute's agenda given that one of those who helped set it up, Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, had received financial support from the forestry giant, MacMillan-Bloedel [Ibid]. To allay these charges, the Fraser Institute stated that its research priorities would not be determined by its funders but by its staff, that the staff of the institute would not engage in political activity, not its funders, and that its conclusions would not be shaped to favour any political or economic group. [Ibid]

In his book Thinking the unthinkable, Richard Cockett outlined that Antony Fisher, who founded the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) played a critical role in the development of the Fraser Institute. "On the strength of his reputation with the IEA, he was invited in 1975 to become co-director of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, founded by the Canadian businessman Pat Boyle in 1974. Fisher let the young director of the Fraser Institute, Dr Michael Walker, get on with the intellectual output of the Institute (just as he had given free reign to Seldon and Harris at the IEA) while he himself concentrated on the fund-raising side," Cockett wrote.

On page 2 of its 2005 Annual Report, the Fraser Institute features a photograph of Michael Walker with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the Eisenhower Administration Building, followed by a photograph of Canada's "future Prime Minister" Stephen Harper attending the Institute's annual general meeting.

This suggests that the institute is indeed engaged in political activity, and certainly many of its Senior Fellows are.

The Fraser Institute's list of Senior Fellows includes Tom Flanagan, originally of Ottawa (Illinois), who is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Tom Flanagan was campaign manager to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he headed Canada's newly formed Conservative Party in federal elections in 2004, and then again in 2005, when the Conservatives won a minority in government.

Other senior fellows of the institute have been deeply involved in political activity. Preston Manning is the founder of the right-wing Reform Party in Canada, which later merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the new Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper who became Prime Minister in 2006. Former Conservative Premier of the province of Ontario, Mike Harris, is also a fellow at the Fraser Institute.[[2]]

There are also questions about how much the institute's work is shaped by its corporate funders.

In 1999, the Fraser Institute sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry: "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." [Ibid]

More recently, the Fraser Institute has led the campaign to deny the science behind and the dangers of climate change, with several of its fellows and authors signing letters to political leaders and writing Op Eds to that effect. ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for "climate change" work.

Professor Ross McKitrick, author of the popular book that denies climate change "Taken By Storm" and known for his opposition to the Endangered Species Act in Canada, is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

[edit]Funding
An article by Donald Gutstein of Simon Fraser University examines recent rises in funding for the Fraser Institute. [3]

The Fraser Institute has sought and received funding from several tobacco companies, including Rothmans, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, according to a 2000 letter found in the tobacco industry documents.[4]

In 2003 Fraser Institute income was $6,620,038. In its annual report it discloses that 52% was from unspecified foundations, 38% from unspecified "organizations" (presumably corporations) and only 10% from individuals.

"During the year, the Institute approached prospective donors to support over 50 specific projects including student seminars, teachers’ workshops, the elementary and secondary school report cards, environmental studies, aboriginal studies, globalization studies, global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, fiscal studies, economic freedom, managing risk and regulation, pharmaceutical and health care studies, CANSTATS, and democratic reform," it states in its 2003 annual report. [5]

While ExxonMobil discloses in it annual statements that it contributed $60,000 to the organisation to work on "Climate Change", the Fraser Institute does not explicitly disclose the contribution. [6]

According to Media Transparency between 1985 and 2003 the Fraser Institute has received 30 grants totalling $ 403,301 (unindexed for inflation) from the following U.S. foundations:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Charles G. Koch Family Foundation
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Carthage Foundation [7]

 

[jreeves]

Fraser Institute? LOL!

History
In 1974, a group of academics and business executives, concerned about big government, founded the Fraser Institute. [[1]]

At the time, there were concerns about the institute's agenda given that one of those who helped set it up, Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, had received financial support from the forestry giant, MacMillan-Bloedel [Ibid]. To allay these charges, the Fraser Institute stated that its research priorities would not be determined by its funders but by its staff, that the staff of the institute would not engage in political activity, not its funders, and that its conclusions would not be shaped to favour any political or economic group. [Ibid]

In his book Thinking the unthinkable, Richard Cockett outlined that Antony Fisher, who founded the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) played a critical role in the development of the Fraser Institute. "On the strength of his reputation with the IEA, he was invited in 1975 to become co-director of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, founded by the Canadian businessman Pat Boyle in 1974. Fisher let the young director of the Fraser Institute, Dr Michael Walker, get on with the intellectual output of the Institute (just as he had given free reign to Seldon and Harris at the IEA) while he himself concentrated on the fund-raising side," Cockett wrote.

On page 2 of its 2005 Annual Report, the Fraser Institute features a photograph of Michael Walker with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the Eisenhower Administration Building, followed by a photograph of Canada's "future Prime Minister" Stephen Harper attending the Institute's annual general meeting.

This suggests that the institute is indeed engaged in political activity, and certainly many of its Senior Fellows are.

The Fraser Institute's list of Senior Fellows includes Tom Flanagan, originally of Ottawa (Illinois), who is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Tom Flanagan was campaign manager to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he headed Canada's newly formed Conservative Party in federal elections in 2004, and then again in 2005, when the Conservatives won a minority in government.

Other senior fellows of the institute have been deeply involved in political activity. Preston Manning is the founder of the right-wing Reform Party in Canada, which later merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the new Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper who became Prime Minister in 2006. Former Conservative Premier of the province of Ontario, Mike Harris, is also a fellow at the Fraser Institute.[[2]]

There are also questions about how much the institute's work is shaped by its corporate funders.

In 1999, the Fraser Institute sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry: "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." [Ibid]

More recently, the Fraser Institute has led the campaign to deny the science behind and the dangers of climate change, with several of its fellows and authors signing letters to political leaders and writing Op Eds to that effect. ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for "climate change" work.

Professor Ross McKitrick, author of the popular book that denies climate change "Taken By Storm" and known for his opposition to the Endangered Species Act in Canada, is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

[edit]Funding
An article by Donald Gutstein of Simon Fraser University examines recent rises in funding for the Fraser Institute. [3]

The Fraser Institute has sought and received funding from several tobacco companies, including Rothmans, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, according to a 2000 letter found in the tobacco industry documents.[4]

In 2003 Fraser Institute income was $6,620,038. In its annual report it discloses that 52% was from unspecified foundations, 38% from unspecified "organizations" (presumably corporations) and only 10% from individuals.

"During the year, the Institute approached prospective donors to support over 50 specific projects including student seminars, teachers’ workshops, the elementary and secondary school report cards, environmental studies, aboriginal studies, globalization studies, global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, fiscal studies, economic freedom, managing risk and regulation, pharmaceutical and health care studies, CANSTATS, and democratic reform," it states in its 2003 annual report. [5]

While ExxonMobil discloses in it annual statements that it contributed $60,000 to the organisation to work on "Climate Change", the Fraser Institute does not explicitly disclose the contribution. [6]

According to Media Transparency between 1985 and 2003 the Fraser Institute has received 30 grants totalling $ 403,301 (unindexed for inflation) from the following U.S. foundations:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Charles G. Koch Family Foundation
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Carthage Foundation [7]

Yawn....nice sourcing...let me help you out....
... fIENDISH.net ....sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute

A little about your precious little liberal sourcewatch...
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: SourceWatch
SourceWatch has a generally liberal and left-wing outlook on issues, and most of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals. Look up liberal on Wiktionary, the free dictionary Liberal may refer to: Politics: Liberalism American liberalism, a political trend in the USA Political progressivism, a political ideology that is for change, often associated with liberal movements Liberty, the condition of being free from control or restrictions Liberal Party, members of... In politics, left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the American sense of the word), or with opposition... Conservatism or political conservatism is any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. ... In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. ... This article is about the modern United States Republican Party. ...


Sourcewatch has been criticised by conservatives and opponents of environmentalism for its political stance. Alan Caruba, who describes himself as a critic of "environmental propaganda' writes "Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular."[4]. Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, a critic of environmentalism and founder of the National Anxiety Center. ...


The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. ActivistCash adds "If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it." [5] The Centre is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as 'leftwing', such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the DJB Foundation, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials. ActivistCash. ... The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly called the Guest Choice Network, is a non-profit U.S. advocacy group funded by the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries, and more than 1,000 concerned individuals, according to its website. ... The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. ... Sheldon Rampton (born August 4, 1957) is the editor of PR Watch, and the author of several books that criticize the public relations industry and what he sees as other forms of corporate and government propaganda. ... John Stauber is an American writer and political activist who co-authored five books about propaganda by governments, private interests and the PR industry. ... The DJB Foundation was set up Wilbur Hugh Ferry and his second wife, Carol Underwood Bernstein. ...


In April 2001, The Village Voice, in a review of Rampton and Stauber's book wrote: “These guys come from the far side of liberal. Saying so is not to detract from their exhaustively detailed reportage and calmly convincing tone; indeed, the book is generally light on rhetoric, and there's hardly a radical quoted. But the public stranglehold of corrupt experts is framed as a crisis of "democracy," which the authors see as not just freedom from having your mind messed with, but also a level of engagement that drives citizens to become their own experts.” [6] The Village Voice is a weekly newspaper in New York City featuring investigative articles, analysis of current affairs and culture, arts reviews and events listings for New York City. ...


Much like other Wiki-systems, content disputes arise on SourceWatch. SourceWatch administrators have been accused of preventing other members from making edits that the administrators are opposed to. Another criticism of SourceWatch is that it opposes contributors changing or deleting information on the basis that it is old and therefore irrelevant. SourceWatch policy is that relevant information does not cease to be relevant merely because time has passed, but some critics disagree with this policy. SourceWatch has also been critical of Wikipedia for not always referencing its sources. [7].

 

[elvis]

Every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university agrees with the overwhelming consensus on AGW. Yet you people throw up flakes, paid hacks, and the whores of the energy companies.

Have a look at the peer reviewed scientific journals. How many articles are there that are offering evidence that the warming has nothing to do with man's actions? How many articles are there that offer evidence that the warming is slowing?

So, you are saying that all the peer reviewed scientific journals from every nation in the world are in on a plot to fool all of us? If not, what are you saying?

More partisan bullshit.