Global Warming

[me]

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm 'Mistaken' 
11 More Scientists Join Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenters 
'The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken'
Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Bali conference proves global warming a myth
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4561710.html

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

[Exterminator]

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm 'Mistaken' 
11 More Scientists Join Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenters 
'The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken'
Link to Full Printable PDF Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

A single scientist whose field has nothing to do with climate disagrees with thousands who specialize in the field and you offer it as proof?

Bali conference proves global warming a myth
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4561710.html

Rather than refer to a news article consisting almost entirely of quotes from unknown sources, why not actually read the reports from the conference itself?  They tell quite a different story: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Again, the number of scientists who specialize in this field and believe there is an issue far outnumber those who don't.  I do note, however, that the publication fails to identify all of the 650 and out of those it does, many have no expertise related to climate studies.

What astounds me is that you people are not the lest bit open minded on the subject.  I have honestly looked for reasons not to believe the consensus and what I've found is that there simply aren't many believable sources who a.) have the requesite background, b.) have never taken money from industry, and c.) think it's all a big hoax.  These people simply do not exist but feel free to continue to intentionally seek out articles that prove that you are going out of your way to bely logic and remain ignorant.

[me]

You didn't even bother to read those articles did you?

[Henry Hawk]

A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California "Gender and Science" professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=17181

Here's my take on this WHOLE thing.....there is enough skepticism, to keep me from passing laws, like the Kyoto Protocol suggests....and to get all jiggy about a Al Gore film, I feel, that is designed to promote a world tax, and punish capitalism.

Secondly, the IPCC is a bunch of scientists that have been hired BY governments around the world AND supported by the UN....uh, governments and the UN are TWO factions that I do NOT trust.

I 100% support of improving our conditions here on earth, but do not WANT to act rashly, but be good stewards of this earth AND the economy.

EX, if you feel the need to continue to referr to me as stupid and continue to name call....I am through with you. You make me to want to take the low road on discussion........I really don't have enough respect from you to truly care what your opinion is, let alone to engage in debates.....you want to discuss with me, try taking the high road and put your arrogance aside.  If not, I wont lose any sleep, but will simply no longer respond to your posts.

[Exterminator]

You didn't even bother to read those articles did you?

Are you not paying attention?  Yes, I read them and with the exception of the third link, they're bullshit.  What value does a news "article" with half a dozen anonymous quotes have?  Seriously?

[me]

This list don't look anonymous to me:( did not include the entire list but scroll down to the end and you'll find all of them.
Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:   

"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.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico 
  "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.   

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


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


"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.


"I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



"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. 

[me]

Oh thats from the 3rd link BTW

[Bo D]

I'm beginning to think that some people get their teeth cleaned by a proctologist.

[me]

I'm beginning to think that some people get their teeth cleaned by a proctologist.

Now why would you say that about Exterminator? 

[Bo D]

Now why would you say that about Exterminator? 

The point is (and you know it) that those of you who will believe that a veterinarian or an oncologist is an expert on climatology may as well go see the vet to get your flu shot.

[me]

You didn't check out those names fully did ya?

"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.

"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 models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
  "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

[Henry Hawk]

Bo, these guys ARE all experts in related fields...these guys ARE highly intelligent scientists...and maybe not complete experts in climatology, but ARE knowledgeable in the study of earth....and to disregard their opinions ALL together is foolish.

[Bo D]

Bo, these guys ARE all experts in related fields...these guys ARE highly intelligent scientists...and maybe not complete experts in climatology, but ARE knowledgeable in the study of earth....and to disregard their opinions ALL together is foolish.

OK...I have a degree in Computer Science and I have 25 years experience in the field (no joke.) Some would call me an expert. Computers are used to study climate change so that is a related field.

That makes me just as much an expert in climatology as the vet or the oncologist.

[me]

OK...I have a degree in Computer Science and I have 25 years experience in the field (no joke.) Some would call me an expert. Computers are used to study climate change so that is a related field.

That makes me just as much an expert in climatology as the vet or the oncologist.

Uh Bo, those are not vets and oncologists on that list.

[Exterminator]

Henry, I really couldn't give a fat rat's arse if you engage me in conversation or not.  As you have consistently proven with your tripe during the election process, you have absolutely no qualms with continually disseminating information that has been proven false to you over and over again.  What you do is not research by any stretch of the imagination; you pick a position and then pay attention only to that which supports that position.

People with no exposure to it assume that formal education is designed to teach things when, in fact, it is designed to teach how to think critically.  Those with such exposure pay attention not only to what is being said by by whom and in what context, weigh those factors accordingly and often form an opinion that, while it may lean more to one side, is more often near the middle than any extreme.

That global warming is happening, is affecting the planet and has potentially far reaching consequences is, by now, clear to any thinking person.  My personal position on it is that regardless of what those consequences may or may not be, there is absolutely no downside to reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses.  Many will claim that there are potentially dire economic consequences but that is nothing more than rhetoric spread by corporate interests who do not want to be forced to pay to change their processes in favor of better stewardship of the environment.  The economy as a whole won't suffer because new technologies would have to be developed to achieve those goals and innovation is always better for the economy than the laws of diminishing returns associated with the status quo.  What those companies are really saying is that it will affect their economies; at least they can count on the general public to be too ignorant to understand the difference.