Man Made Global Warming KOOKS

[KittenKoder]

Here is the gist of this. Just like with healthcare, if ABC or NBC got a bunch of experts together and they debated in a town hall style forum, the global warming deniers would get whipped with facts.

So they don't ever do that. The insurance defenders and the GW deniers choose not to get together to debate fact vs. fiction.

You don't even read short posts when you disagree ... of course you would have no clues about the big picture ... just the propaganda you have in pamphlets.

Look who's talking. Even guys like Newt admit I'm right.

Where’s the Outrage? » Newt Gingrich admits that Global Warming exists

Let me explain short and simple for you. Going green is a must, but the corporations will fight as long as they can because it is going to cost them money to clean up. Two things they hate, regulations and more taxes.

Corporations aren't people. They don't care about health. They only care about profitability. You prove that you serve corporations over people.

Why I don't know. Do you own one? Probably they scared you into thinking that if we force them to clean up, it'll raise prices for you. Greedy and ignorant. They prey on people like you. Ignorant.

.... and yet ... environuts like you support forcing people to spend billions on only a few corporations owned by one person through fear ... there's a word for that.

 

[Navy1960]

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
14 November 2007
John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center and State
Climatologist working on Alabama’s economic development.
Summary
The foundation of a climate science program must be a commitment to continuous and
accurate observations. We must know WHAT the climate is doing before we can
understand WHY it does what it does. However, we now face the loss of satellite and
other observations critical to understanding the climate. The NRC Decadal Survey goals
for satellite systems should be pursued vigorously as well as support for other systems.
The climate science program now has a large climate-modeling component. However,
based on limited studies, too much confidence in my view is placed in model projections.
These projections cannot reliably predict the climate on regional scales where we live and
grow our food. The potential of billion-dollar economic impacts of proposals designed to
mitigate “global warming” are based on these models and some common misunderstandings.
Thus it is imperative that a “Red Team” approach be taken with climate model
evaluation. Such teams, independent from those with vested interests in the modeling
industry, would evaluate models with a hard-nosed methodology to inform Policymakers
about model confidence from a different and scientifically defensible point of view.
The human race will adapt to whatever trajectory the climate system selects. Having a
firm understanding of past variability allows society to adapt more intelligently to
variations almost certain to occur in the future. Such is a benefit of a robust observing
system. In 1988 I pinned a General Rule of Climate, “If it happened before, it will
happen again, and probably worse.” The point is that if we prepare for what has already
been observed (e.g. hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, blizzards) and then some,
we will be much better prepared for whatever the climate does.
There is no guarantee that energy policies intended to deal with climate change will have
the desired effect, either in sign or magnitude. However, policies which address the
reduction of emissions as well as other important issues, one being the emphatically
desirable goal of affordable energy, are worth pursuing.
Making energy more expensive by direct taxes or cap-and-trade schemes (around which
business may cleverly skirt) is troublesome. First, these are regressive taxes since the
poor disproportionately spend more on energy. Secondly, as a manufacturer, who
employs hundreds in my state, told me last week, “If my energy costs go up according to
these proposals, I’m closing down and moving offshore.” Irony and tragedy are here.
The irony is that higher energy costs will lead to an increase in greenhouse emissions as
offshore plants have less stringent rules. The tragedy is that this will lead to further
economic suffering in a part of my state where no more suffering is needed.



It never ceases to amaze me that people would put their faith in the IPCC and AL Gore when there is a large debate in scientific community as to the merits of Global Warming and the science is far from settled. So to enable policy based on un-settled science is not only wrong it can put this nation in economic danger.

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw]YouTube - Gingrich Testimony On The Waxman-Markey Energy Tax Bill[/ame]

I would hardly call this a rining endorsement of the the foundations of Global Warming or Waxman Markey..

"Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.

As I have stated many times on here, cap and trade has NOTHING TO DO with the environment and those that think it does are in for a very big surprise.

 

[manu1959]

Sen. Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass bill...

yes....only barbara and the us senate can save the world.....better living through legislation.....i am sure all the other countries of the world will comply with whatever she wants....

 

[Navy1960]

You don't even read short posts when you disagree ... of course you would have no clues about the big picture ... just the propaganda you have in pamphlets.

Look who's talking. Even guys like Newt admit I'm right.

Where’s the Outrage? » Newt Gingrich admits that Global Warming exists

Let me explain short and simple for you. Going green is a must, but the corporations will fight as long as they can because it is going to cost them money to clean up. Two things they hate, regulations and more taxes.

Corporations aren't people. They don't care about health. They only care about profitability. You prove that you serve corporations over people.

Why I don't know. Do you own one? Probably they scared you into thinking that if we force them to clean up, it'll raise prices for you. Greedy and ignorant. They prey on people like you. Ignorant.

.... and yet ... environuts like you support forcing people to spend billions on only a few corporations owned by one person through fear ... there's a word for that.

NEW YORK, July 26 (UPI) -- GE AES Greenhouse Gas Services has created a standard for selling greenhouse gas credits in the United States, it announced in New York.

The gas services is a joint venture between GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of General Electric, and the AES Corp., created in February.

The GHG standard scientifically verifies and measures the environmental benefit, the company said. The standard will also back the first U.S. credit card dedicated to helping reduce cardholders' greenhouse gas emissions.

GE AES Greenhouse Gas Services said it expects to generate about 10 million tons of greenhouse gas credits by 2010. The credits will be marketed to companies that want to reduce their environmental impact.
GE AES announces carbon trading standard - UPI.com

Let's see here, G.E.'s CEO Jeffery Immelt is also an economic advisor to President Obama, they own wond turbine production companies and farm production companies, as well as MSNBC and Universal. So there is no vested interest in using Global Warming as a marketing tool? The fact is KK your right thats what this entire bill is all about, as well it's marketing sledgehammer "Global Warming" and that is enriching one company over another using the Federal Govt. and taxpayers to fund it.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It never ceases to amaze me that people would put their faith in the IPCC and AL Gore when there is a large debate in scientific community as to the merits of Global Warming and the science is far from settled. So to enable policy based on un-settled science is not only wrong it can put this nation in economic danger.

In reality, Navy, there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that global warming is taking place, and that CO2 from burning fossil fuel is at least a contributing factor.

Those who say otherwise, much like the scientists who said that nicotine wasn't addictive, are being paid to reach a certain conclusion.

 

[Oddball]

"Consensus" isn't scientific, it's political.

Ad homenim poisoning of the well is not science either.

Double fail.

 

[Navy1960]

I can see now I'm going to have to show the numbers no matter how much I've show it before. I love it when someone say's those scientists are paid when there more than 30 plus thousand of them at the moment. I rather imagine that many of them from MIT to Harvard to UAB, to ASU to UofA would dispute your claims that the lifetimes of research that they put into this science is somehow equated to that of being paid off because it doesn't suit the current marketing scheme. In fact the very nature of science is to question, and to dismiss those scientist that would question conclusions from Mann to the IPCC is to take a trek back to the dark ages. So here are just a few of those so called paid off scientists..
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." (November 2004)[5] "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..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "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." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]
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."[9]
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."[10]

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

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."[11]
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".[12]

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus viewIndividuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

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."[13][14][15]
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."[16]
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."[17]
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."[18]
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."[19]
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"[20]
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."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "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."[23]
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."[24]
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."[25]
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."[26]
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"[27]
Tim Patterson[28], 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?"[29][30]
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".[31]
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".[32]
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)."[33]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he 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. ... [A]bout 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.[34]
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."[35][36] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here'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."[38]
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"[39]
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..."[40]
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."[41]
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."[42]

Believe cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he 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."[43]
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."[44]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t 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."[45]
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."[46]
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"[47]
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."[48]
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."[49]
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."[50]
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."[51] "[T]here 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."[52]

Believe global warming will benefit human society
Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

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."[53]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming 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. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[54]
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."


I thought I would post it here because obviously going to the web site seems to cause some sort of aversion to some as they might discover that man made Global Warming is not what they have been told it is.

 

[Navy1960]

Seattle - On Earth Day, we commonly hear dark predictions about the looming horrors of global warming (a typical example, “What is at stake [is] our ability to live on planet Earth,” Al Gore).

Yet not so long ago the news media issued dire warnings about global cooling and a coming Ice Age. Consider these headlines:

• “The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969.

• “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970.

• “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.

• “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975.

• “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.

• “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975.

• “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975.

• “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975.

• “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.

Reporters told the public about global cooling in the same confident tone used in today’s coverage about global warming, creating the strong impression that no reasonable person could disagree. Here are some examples:

“The evidence in support of these predictions [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The Cooling World

“A study release last month by two NOAA scientists that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.” The Cooling World

“Telltale signs are everywhere...the thickness of the pack ice...the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo...” Another Ice Age?

“Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees.” Another Ice Age?

“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” The Ice Age Cometh!

Critics will say there was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the world was cooling, but that’s not how the media reported it to the public. Similarly, today some scientists want to debate global warming and its possible causes, but the media presents global warming as a settled issue, not to be questioned. Since the reporting today about world climate is the opposite of what it was 30 years ago, it’s ok to be skeptical about the worst predictions surrounding global warming.

Thats the very nature of science to question!!, so when presented with this what does the Global Warming Cadre do? They rush into their little research books and look at about 75 peer reviewed articles at the time and come to the conclusion that because half of them predicted Global Warming this is not true and they are right. Again, there is no such thing as settled science. science is NEVER and I repeat never static, if it were then there would be no need for research on issues once they are settled. So the very idea that this Global Warming marketing myth is settled science shows it to be a fraud.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I can see now I'm going to have to show the numbers no matter how much I've show it before. I love it when someone say's those scientists are paid when there more than 30 plus thousand of them at the moment. I rather imagine that many of them from MIT to Harvard to UAB, to ASU to UofA would dispute your claims that the lifetimes of research that they put into this science is somehow equated to that of being paid off because it doesn't suit the current marketing scheme.

Don't kid yourself: the oil and coal industries have been spending millions over the past several years to wage a disinformation campaign.

Most scientific, medical, and engineering societies, and their members from Stephen Hawking on down, say that global warming is observable. Here's a short list:

European Academy of Sciences and Arts
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Source

 

[Caligirl]

Speaking as a member of the science community in southern california it's my sense that the "debate" in science is not the same as the "debate" in pop culture, at all. There is no serious disagreement (that I am aware of) that CO2 contributes to warming, among the scientists I work with, and I overlap 2 departments including planetary sciences. I don't know of a single "skeptic" *of the variety on this board*, not one. At conferences that have climate sessions, the odd skeptic here and there is invariably associated with oil, not academia. There are skeptics, but what they are skeptical of is things like whether an ice sheet collapse is due directly to warming or something else (such as an underground volcanic event). Global warming is not considered at all controversial, there is essentially complete consensus. debates on the topic in science are about individual events, and what the level of uncertainty is in any particular event.

I wouldn't presume to tell someone in the Navy what the Navy is about, so hopefully my experience in academia is useful here.

Respectfully,
Cali

 

[Old Rocks]

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
The skeptic argument...The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s... In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming (source: Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.


The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling.


Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...
Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ya, Navy, 30,000 scientists. All rounded up by this organization

17 May 2008
Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists
DLH
Scientific Consensus? - That Global Warming is Natural - and BENEFICIAL?!
Dr. Arthur Robinson will be announcing Monday that over 31,000 scientists reject’s IPCC’s contention of anthropogenic global warming. They further hold that the natural global warming is beneficial. The site gives an excellent summary of supporting research. This cite and its history are instructive on the methods to overturn the ruling paradigm and media mentality. ——————–

ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)
Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM
What: release of names in OISM “Petition Project”
When: 10 AM, Monday May 19
Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC
Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists | Uncommon Descent

By all accounts, Arthur Robinson was a talented biochemist prior to founding the OISM. His early promise as a student won him a job as an assistant chemistry professor at the University of California-San Diego, where he struck up a partnership with his mentor, Linus Pauling, the only individual ever to receive two separate Nobel awards (for chemistry in 1954 and peace in 1962). Pauling and Robinson shared an initial enthusiasm for Pauling's controversial theory (which has since been rejected by most researchers) that high doses of vitamin C could ward off colds, mental illness, cancer and a host of other diseases. Robinson and Pauling formed the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine to explore Pauling's theory, but the partnership ended badly in 1978, when Robinson's research led him to conclude that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful instead of beneficial. Pauling's leftist leanings also clashed with Robinson's conservative political views, and other trustees at the Pauling Institute accused Robinson of poor management. Pauling forced Robinson to resign from the Institute and terminated his research, labeling it "amateurish" and inadequate. Robinson responded by suing the Institute for $64 million. After a bitter, four-year legal battle, Robinson received an out-of-court settlement of $575,000.

Robinson established the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1980. In its early years, the OISM focused much of its attention on a new theory that Robinson had developed regarding "molecular clocks" that he thought might influence aging. It also became involved in issues related to nuclear war and civil defense. It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls. Following his collaboration with Robinson, North built a web-based marketing empire built around apocalyptic predictions that the Y2K bug would make the dawn of the 21st century "the year the earth stands still." North predicted that computer failures would cause "cascading cross defaults, where banks cannot settle accounts with each other, and the banking system goes into gridlock, worldwide," in addition to disruptions of oil supplies, electricity, manufacturing and public utility systems. "We are facing a breakdown of civilization if the power grid goes down," North predicted in late 1999, boasting, "I was the only person saying this on a Web site in early 1998, although a few sites do today." (After his Y2K predictions fizzled, North retooled his website to offer internet marketing products and services.) [Note from Gary North: Dr. Robinson did not believe my Y2K predictions, and in any case is no way responsible for my writings, which should be obvious to any fair-minded reader of this article on Dr. Robinson.]

In 1988, Robinson's wife died suddenly and he took over the home-schooling of their six children, leading to a profitable side business. He assembled a set of 22 CD-ROM disks containing public-domain versions of various books and educational materials such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Robinson Crusoe and McGuffey's Readers, which the family now markets as a home-schooling kit. The kits sell for $200 each, and Robinson says the curriculum has been purchased by more than 32,000 families. The OISM website markets the curriculum as a way to "teach your children to teach themselves and to acquire superior knowledge as did many of America's most outstanding citizens in the days before socialism in education." The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

 

[Old Rocks]

22 July 09
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
Tags: Desmogblog, 000 global warming petition, 30, art robinson, oism petition, oregon petition project, US
To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be an understatement.

I thought it would be timely to once-again breakdown this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on 'unverifiable mess" below].

This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to Dermatologist, I go to a Cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in Medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.


In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

The Petition's Sordid Beginnings

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since deceased) a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]

"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon

"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completley misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Kevin Grandia | The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

 

[Old Rocks]

In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:

“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.[21]
”

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Navy. Name one scientific society in the world that does not state that global warming is happening and that the primary driver is man's use of fossil fuels. The same goes for the National Academies of Science of all the industrialized nations. Same for all the major universities in the world. But that is not consensus?

Simple fact. The overwhelming evidence for AWG has created an overwhelming consensus among scientist of all the nations in the world as to the warming and it's cause. All the political talking points will not change that, nor will they stop the accelerating melting of the alpine glaciers and ice caps.

 

[Oddball]

Speaking as a member of the science community in southern california it's my sense that the "debate" in science is not the same as the "debate" in pop culture, at all. There is no serious disagreement (that I am aware of) that CO2 contributes to warming, among the scientists I work with, and I overlap 2 departments including planetary sciences. I don't know of a single "skeptic" *of the variety on this board*, not one. At conferences that have climate sessions, the odd skeptic here and there is invariably associated with oil, not academia. There are skeptics, but what they are skeptical of is things like whether an ice sheet collapse is due directly to warming or something else (such as an underground volcanic event). Global warming is not considered at all controversial, there is essentially complete consensus. debates on the topic in science are about individual events, and what the level of uncertainty is in any particular event.

I wouldn't presume to tell someone in the Navy what the Navy is about, so hopefully my experience in academia is useful here.

Respectfully,
Cali

Water vapor traps faaaaaaaaaar more heat than does CO2. It comprises a far greater percentage of the atmosphere than CO2 as well......Those are also undeniable scientific facts.

The percentage of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere attributable to industrial activities is far less than that which has occurred naturally...Also factual.

Now, please insult everyone's intelligence and tell us all that the circles of academe in which you run are completely apolitical.

 

[Old Rocks]

Speaking as a member of the science community in southern california it's my sense that the "debate" in science is not the same as the "debate" in pop culture, at all. There is no serious disagreement (that I am aware of) that CO2 contributes to warming, among the scientists I work with, and I overlap 2 departments including planetary sciences. I don't know of a single "skeptic" *of the variety on this board*, not one. At conferences that have climate sessions, the odd skeptic here and there is invariably associated with oil, not academia. There are skeptics, but what they are skeptical of is things like whether an ice sheet collapse is due directly to warming or something else (such as an underground volcanic event). Global warming is not considered at all controversial, there is essentially complete consensus. debates on the topic in science are about individual events, and what the level of uncertainty is in any particular event.

I wouldn't presume to tell someone in the Navy what the Navy is about, so hopefully my experience in academia is useful here.

Respectfully,
Cali

Water vapor traps faaaaaaaaaar more heat than does CO2. It comprises a far greater percentage of the atmosphere than CO2 as well......Those are also undeniable scientific facts.

The percentage of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere attributable to industrial activities is far less than that which has occurred naturally...Also factual.

Now, please insult everyone's intelligence and tell us all that the circles of academe in which you run are completely apolitical.

LOL. OK, Dude, you have it right. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, but not the most important one. You see, were you to remove all the water vapor, in a short time, the heat that was still in the atmosphere, and that trapped by CO2, would have an equal amount of water back into the atmosphere. However, were you to remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere, in a short time you would have a snowball earth.

If you doubled the water vapor content in the atmosphere, it would make little differance. For the residence time in the atmosphere for water is less than ten days. If you double the CO2 content, it makes a huge differance. For the residence time for CO2 is about two centuries.

Now I realize that this goes right over the head of you and Elvis, but there are others on the board capable of simple logic.

Now, you are right on the percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere. The present level is about 385 ppm. Of that, 280 is natural, what the level was before the industrial age. The rest, 105 ppm is anthropogenic. It would be much higher, but the oceans have absorbed much of the anthropogenic CO2. And the oceans are becoming more acidic because of it, on the verge of negatively affecting the single celled organisms at the base of the food chains in the oceans.

And you may be right in the future, if the thawing of the Arctic releases enough sequestered CO2, we may see CO2 and CH4 from that source far outstrip the amount that we are injecting into the atmosphere. See the P-T Extinction, and the PETM for an explanation of what that leads to.

 

[Chris]

It never ceases to amaze me that people would put their faith in the IPCC and AL Gore when there is a large debate in scientific community as to the merits of Global Warming and the science is far from settled. So to enable policy based on un-settled science is not only wrong it can put this nation in economic danger.

In reality, Navy, there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that global warming is taking place, and that CO2 from burning fossil fuel is at least a contributing factor.

Those who say otherwise, much like the scientists who said that nicotine wasn't addictive, are being paid to reach a certain conclusion.

 

[Chris]

"Consensus" isn't scientific, it's political.

Ad homenim poisoning of the well is not science either.

Double fail.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

Everything else is just bullshit.