97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Chris]

More data from the University of Illinois...great website thanks for turning me on to it, jreeves....

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

 

[jreeves]

More data from the University of Illinois...great website thanks for turning me on to it, jreeves....

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Your welcome, maybe it will help with your global warming fears. Global warming only exists in your mind and the mind of those who hope to profit off of its pseudo existence.

 

[Chris]

On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests
for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested
individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change
and/or global warming.
One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing
the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31,
1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern
Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse
gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice
are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of
sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric
warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
(Details: Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover )
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice
area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

 

[jreeves]

On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests
for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested
individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change
and/or global warming.
One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing
the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31,
1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern
Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse
gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice
are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of
sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric
warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
(Details: Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover )
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice
area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

View attachment $untitled.bmp

Using an algorithm Nasa uses....
Global warming is a myth...

 

[Chris]

On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests
for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested
individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change
and/or global warming.
One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing
the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31,
1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern
Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse
gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice
are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of
sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric
warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
(Details: Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover )
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice
area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

View attachment 6713

Using an algorithm Nasa uses....
Global warming is a myth...

A graph with no link. Nice try.

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting with some year to year variablity related to the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. The Antarctic land ice is holding do to colder temps which are the result of the hole in the ozone which we created. As the sun moves upward in the solar cycle, and the arctic methane begins to kick in, and we increase CO2 at the current relentless rate, we will see rising temperatures unless the sun has a large and sudden drop in radiance.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[jreeves]

On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests
for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested
individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change
and/or global warming.
One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing
the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31,
1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern
Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse
gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice
are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of
sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric
warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
(Details: Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover )
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice
area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

View attachment 6713

Using an algorithm Nasa uses....
Global warming is a myth...

A graph with no link. Nice try.

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting with some year to year variablity related to the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. The Antarctic land ice is holding do to colder temps which are the result of the hole in the ozone which we created. As the sun moves upward in the solar cycle, and the arctic methane begins to kick in, and we increase CO2 at the current relentless rate, we will see rising temperatures unless the sun has a large and sudden drop in radiance.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Here you go...
Global Sea Ice Trend Since 1979 - surprising « Watts Up With That?

Also, the U of ILL artic center agrees with me. Sea Ice is the same as it was 29 years ago, but nice try of promoting your religion which is man made global warming.....

 

[Chris]

View attachment 6713

Using an algorithm Nasa uses....
Global warming is a myth...

A graph with no link. Nice try.

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting with some year to year variablity related to the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. The Antarctic land ice is holding do to colder temps which are the result of the hole in the ozone which we created. As the sun moves upward in the solar cycle, and the arctic methane begins to kick in, and we increase CO2 at the current relentless rate, we will see rising temperatures unless the sun has a large and sudden drop in radiance.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Here you go...
Global Sea Ice Trend Since 1979 - surprising « Watts Up With That?

Also, the U of ILL artic center agrees with me. Sea Ice is the same as it was 29 years ago, but nice try of promoting your religion which is man made global warming.....

The What's Up With That? website?

You must be joking.

Still waiting for those peer reviewed studies.

Oops! You don't have any!

 

[jreeves]

A graph with no link. Nice try.

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting with some year to year variablity related to the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. The Antarctic land ice is holding do to colder temps which are the result of the hole in the ozone which we created. As the sun moves upward in the solar cycle, and the arctic methane begins to kick in, and we increase CO2 at the current relentless rate, we will see rising temperatures unless the sun has a large and sudden drop in radiance.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Here you go...
Global Sea Ice Trend Since 1979 - surprising « Watts Up With That?

Also, the U of ILL artic center agrees with me. Sea Ice is the same as it was 29 years ago, but nice try of promoting your religion which is man made global warming.....

The What's Up With That? website?

You must be joking.

Still waiting for those peer reviewed studies.

Oops! You don't have any!

650 of them, I have posted the link...don't you remember or is the Kool-Aid effecting your memory

 

[Old Rocks]

Reeves, you were given legitimate web sites from people whose business and life's work is the study of the cryosphere. You replied with a right wingnut site. Sorry boy, no brass ring, you have struck out.

 

[Chris]

Here you go...
Global Sea Ice Trend Since 1979 - surprising « Watts Up With That?

Also, the U of ILL artic center agrees with me. Sea Ice is the same as it was 29 years ago, but nice try of promoting your religion which is man made global warming.....

The What's Up With That? website?

You must be joking.

Still waiting for those peer reviewed studies.

Oops! You don't have any!

650 of them, I have posted the link...don't you remember or is the Kool-Aid effecting your memory

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

 

[jreeves]

Reeves, you were given legitimate web sites from people whose business and life's work is the study of the cryosphere. You replied with a right wingnut site. Sorry boy, no brass ring, you have struck out.

These scientist disagree with the man made global warming cult....
32,000 deniers
Question: How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.

The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as -- and was -- the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations -- virtually every nation in the world -- including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world's environmental groups came too -- they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.

In February of that year, in an attempt to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," decrying "the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action."

To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world's most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.

Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal, and released to the public at the Earth Summit. By the summit's end, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal.

These scientists -- mere hundreds -- also mattered for nought in the face of the tens of thousands assembled at Rio. The Heidelberg Appeal was blown away and never obtained prominence, even though the organizers persisted over the years to ultimately obtain some 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.

The earnest effort to demonstrate the absence of a consensus continued with the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change -- an attempt to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Its 150-odd signatories also counted for nought. As did the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship in 2000, signed by more than 1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world's poor.

Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.

Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ya sure. A bogus list from OISM. That is Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, from the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. With the vast population of 1200. Counting a few dogs just to even things out. Those people are a joke here in Oregon. A bunch of wing nut charlatans.

Climate "Science" by the Pound

A climate change petition started in 1988 by the tobacco industry's favourite scientist (Federick Seitz), has just been re-released with a reported 31,072 signatures of "scientists" - some of whom are reported to actually work in the field.

The Oregon Petition was originally started by Dr. Seitz (formerly the principal adviser to the RJ Reynolds medical research program) and by Arthur B. Robinson, a lapsed biochemist who now operates the one-man Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Robinson himself was quoted recently saying that a survey was an inadequate way to pursue science. "The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.”

But that turns out to be an overstatement. Seitz, for example, died in March.

But the odd quirk has not lessened the excitement that this document is generating in the denier press. Take for example the breathless coverage offered by the National Post. Frequent contributor Lawrence Solomon declares that 32,000 is even more than the number of journalists who attended the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which surely must prove something.

Of course, Solomon recently produced a whole book entitled The Deniers, which, despite the title, included NO ONE who actually takes issue with the fact that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

Yet now he trumpets this ever-expanding list of (unsubstantiated) names and celebrates their credibility, bizarrely, on the basis that "the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come."

"As reputable as they come"? Well that may have been true in 1962. when Seitz was appointed head of the National Academy of Sciences. It may still have been true in 1968, when he was named president at Rockefeller. But things apparently started going downhill, even before Seitz helped found the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute, in 1984. And by 1989, Bill Hobbs, a senior executive at RJ Reynolds, was telling people that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." (He was just 78 at the time.)

So, here's a guy who ended his career as paid flak for the tobacco and arms industries, who wsas dismissed by a tobacco executive in 1989 as "not sufficiently rational," who nine years later embarrassed himself and the National Academy of Sciences by helping to present his bogus petition as a NAS project, and Lawrence Solomon calls him "as reputable as they come."

That should be very helpful in establishing the relative reputability of everyone else on this list.

One last comment: 32,000 turns out to be an interesting number. It's a favorite number for Art Robinson, keeper of the petition. That, he says, is how many copies he has sold of his Christian fundamentalist home-schooling kit - which is based, in part, on a free version of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

As Larry Solomon might say: "as reputable as they come.

"http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again

 

[Old Rocks]

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

 

[Old Rocks]

Reeves, old boy, you are keeping the company of charlatans.

 

[Chris]

Lies and deception are the very essense of the global warming deniers MO.

It's ridiculous, really.

 

[Meister]

Has anyone noticed that everyone but old rocks uses bogus sites???? Now that would make me wonder. Everyone else is wrong but old rocks...is that anything like"everyone else is crazy but me?"

 

[Old Rocks]

Has anyone noticed that everyone but old rocks uses bogus sites???? Now that would make me wonder. Everyone else is wrong but old rocks...is that anything like"everyone else is crazy but me?"

Have you noticed that I use sites associated with scientific organizations with good scientific credentials, rather than partisan political sites. Sites like this;

Abrupt Climate Change : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[Meister]

No I don't. What I see is paid scientific bogus sites from your end. Kinda like..."here's some money, this is the results we want to see."

 

[jreeves]

Has anyone noticed that everyone but old rocks uses bogus sites???? Now that would make me wonder. Everyone else is wrong but old rocks...is that anything like"everyone else is crazy but me?"

Have you noticed that I use sites associated with scientific organizations with good scientific credentials, rather than partisan political sites. Sites like this;

Abrupt Climate Change : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Yep all these scientists are bogus....
Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

“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. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - 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 the 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
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“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.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“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.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“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.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

But the level to which you and Chrissy pants will go to promote your pseudo theory is unbelievable. Sourcewatch is hardly unpartisan....

 

[Chris]

jreeves, there is no theory involved, only fact.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

None of the above statements is a theory.