Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > UN Blowback: Over 650 Leading International Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming

UN Blowback: Over 650 Leading International Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming
Thread Tools
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 06:34 AM
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616db87e6

Full report published by the US Senate here

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

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

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:49 AM. )
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 07:41 AM
 
Wow, now that is a pretty impressive minority-report: 650 dissenting scientists against the 52 scientists that the UN uses to warn against Global warming.
My inner instinct tells me that the dissenting scientists are right, but that may only be because I personally favour dissenters in any context.

Should definitely become interesting.

Taliesin
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 08:09 AM
 
At this point, I don't care which side is "right'. We could face global meltdown tomorrow, or this could be just a blip on the radar of life.

What bothers me isn't which side is right, but that government agencies and international entities are proclaiming one side as being right without there being overwhelming evidence that it is right. Based on circumstantial scientific evidence, they are claiming scientific certainty when there really is none. No more than there was for global cooling back in the 70's, or the effects of a population explosion that scientists promised back in the late 60's.

Why? Because it's in their interest to do so. The people involved in pushing this aren't scientists - they are political activists with scientific degrees. Those types should hardly be the ones making policy decisions.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 12:26 PM
 
650 scientists out of hundreds of thousands. OK.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Isn't this a fairly predictable refutation of the article cited though? Some of the statements included from former IPCC scientists are in fact pretty damning. Do we just pluck the 3 or 4 more absurd arguments as indicative of the entire debate?
It is typical response. It's even a cut and paste.

As for the arguments, I think it is damning if those listed in Dissenting column have views that disagree with modern science and/or based off FUD. I bolded the specific parts that made me wonder what criteria was used to make these opinions valid. Specifically...

John Lott is still spouting (or maybe he's being quoted from 1999 - IDK) that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Do we have to go over this one again?

Louis A.G. Hissink doesn't believe in Greenhouse Gasses. At all. Like "No gas is capable of storing heat." He's calling into question the underlying physics of 100's of years of science. Also, if his experience as a field geologist makes his opinion worth something, his opinion and mine cancel each other out.

Do you think the IPCC isn't likewise citing economists and geologists? The sole intent of the IPCC is to compile studies and policy statement summaries regarding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and the options for adaptation and mitigation. How would it serve this body and its well-documented intention to reference material that does not presuppose the above???

Do we apply the same degree of scrutiny to Al Gore, with absolutely no credentials at all, then mock any and all information referenced by him?
I wouldn't expect less. I don't look to Al Gore to bolster my opinion that GW is happening.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:20 PM
 
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
This is a valid opinion in that it is how a person feels. I went to the actual report to see what specific problems this Nobel Prize Winner had with Global Warming and was suprised that this is the actual quote in the report.

Opinion? Yes. Reasons for opinion? No.

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

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.
Opinion? Yes. Reasons for opinion? No.

“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.
Now, this one actually starts to talk about the science of the IPCC, but doesn't go into details. But, by now, it should become apparent that this Senate Report is not about Science, rather people's opinions, and not even about how these people arrived at their opinions.

Inhofe is certainly going for the Appeal to Authority here.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:30 PM
 
Those aren't climate scientists.

It's like they picked a bunch of chemists, physicists, geologists, and high school biology teachers as "scientists,"

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
[QUOTE=The Crook;3775227]Those aren't climate scientists.

You're right. Their livelihoods don't rely on there being manmade global warming. They are just independent scientists who have looked at the data, and came up finding it lacking in regards to what the UN claims.

I'm guessing a "Atmospheric physicist" is smart enough to look at the data other scientists are forwarding, understand it, and make a determination on it's validity.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:42 PM
 
Smart enough doesn't mean they have knowledge of the field.

And climate scientists' livelihoods don't depend on global warming. That's just ridiculous.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:43 PM
 
In the report, in the middle of page 2 are three links contained in the sentence, "Global Temperatures Failing to warm."

The first links to a compilation of links. The first of those is this: Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Unfortunately, they are using monthly temperature anamolies. They define January 07 to January 08 as a year, and the drop is the difference in temperature anamoly (which are both still positive btw) between those two months, not the average of that year, like you'd expect if you were talking about long-term trends in climate. BTW, January 08, again, is still clearly shown to be warmer than the monthly average.

The first link off the second page, Environment
Climate change
2008 will be coolest year of the decade
, continues...
Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists
...which seems odd, because this goes against the very point that Inhofe is trying to make. I mean, maybe the links on each Senate Report page are sorted by least convincing to most convincing, but that makes little sense. To me at least.
( Last edited by Warren Pease; Dec 12, 2008 at 01:53 PM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
650 scientists out of hundreds of thousands. OK.
Name your hundreds of thousands and quote them.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:49 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:53 PM
 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ9-fwSMWY

Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. The presentation is called "Don't Panic -- A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory." Focuses on a number of topics, including the lack of real evidence of anthropogenic climate change as well as the use of positive feedback in models to create catastrophic forecasts.

The counter presentation by popular global warming alarmist Joe Nation isn't being posted online and Warren Meyer, who has a recording, isn't being given permission to post it on YouTube. The alarmist's case is so embarrassingly flawed and lacking in hard science that it would draw too many laughs if presented. It's funnier than the sci-fi-comedy-horror that Al Gore won an Oscar for.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:49 AM. )
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Name your hundreds of thousands and quote them.
Mrs. Hartwick, 8th Grade Life Sciences.
Meesha Goodwin, Protein Chemist
Sara Davino, UVA Chemical Engineering Grad Student

(Those should be acceptable, given the standard of "scientists" that "report" seems to accept. Basically anyone nominally a scientist regardless of their total lack of expert knowledge in the field of climate change science.)

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:55 PM
 
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:48 AM. )
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
What is "normal" climate?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Qp5bxrp-c
A "normal" climate is what non-climate scientists say it is.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Name your hundreds of thousands and quote them.
Do you really want to play this game again? It's a game with moving goalposts that can never be won... Oh, i see why you want to play it.

I'll ask, given the quotes above, which ones do you feel support the idea that the earth is cooling? Or - I believe all the above quotes represent an opinion which is not supported by anything of scientific merit, rather are merely Appeals to Authority, who do not defend their opinion.
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
Mrs. Hartwick, 8th Grade Life Sciences.
Meesha Goodwin, Protein Chemist
Sara Davino, UVA Chemical Engineering Grad Student

(Those should be acceptable, given the standard of "scientists" that "report" seems to accept. Basically anyone nominally a scientist regardless of their total lack of expert knowledge in the field of climate change science.)
lol

You forgot these two:

Al Gore, College Drop Out, Failed Theologian
Leonardo Di Caprio, College Drop Out, Overactor
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:47 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Do you really want to play this game again?
Are you few closet Marxist non-scientists on this forum going to challenge these 650 prominent academics or skirt around the subject by attacking forum members?
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:47 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Are you few closet Marxist non-scientists on this forum going to challenge these 650 prominent academics ...
Did you read, like, any of my posts?
or skirt around the subject by attacking forum members?
ROFL - Did you, like, read any of my posts?
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Did you read, like, any of my posts?
Your posts lack any scientific value and aren't worth debate. Even your character is a turn off, full of contempt, twisted attacks and ad hominem. Like a religious zealot.

In your own words, nothing but mankind can be responsible for climate change. As another member pointed out, this means you do not believe in natural climate change despite thousands of years worth of ice-core and other data that shows the Earth has had warmer spells than today for most of history. You believe in climate stasis, which is a ridiculous concept.

Further:

You refuse to acknowledge solar activity and its effect on climate.
You refuse to acknowledge Pacific decadal oscillation side-effects.
You refuse to acknowledge the Holocene and Medieval Climate Optimums.
You refuse to acknowledge natural variability.
You refuse to embrace Complexity.
You refuse to acknowledge natural recovery of global temperatures as we exited the Little Ice Age.
You refuse to acknowledge that carbon dioxide has never driven global temperatures in the past.
You refuse to note that carbon dioxide levels have been higher than present many times in the past.

So comeback when you have some basic science lessons and can actually debate the science that gets posted, instead of trying to pick fights with members.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:47 AM. )
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:16 PM
 
Short debunking here, plus he's got a link to a more detailed dissection of that list in his post.

Frankly, this is just like the by now well-demolished list kept by the Discovery Institute of "prominent scientists who don't believe in evolution," -- a sad attempt at FUD, coupled with the ol' Appeal to Authority fallacy (zomg, they're SCIENTISTS, never mind they're talking about something that's outside their own specialties).

These sorts of lists also tend to invariably shrink, as there's always scientists who find themselves put on them due to blatant cherrypicking of something they said, and who then demand to be taken off of the list because what they really said meant nothing like what the cherrypicking turned it into.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post
Short debunking here, plus he's got a link to a more detailed dissection of that list in his post.
Such debunking can be applied to ANY list of scientists, for and against anthropogenic global warming. You can remove many names from all lists and would would still have longer lists against the alarmist case than for it.

But at the end of the day science isn't a numbers game. The numbers game began because the alarmists want to shove their religion down our throats and said there was a massive consensus in their favour. Only religion does that, not science.

So if they want to play the numbers gamer then we will.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:47 AM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by papernotes View Post
your posts lack any scientific value and aren't worth debate. Even your character is a turn off, full of contempt, twisted attacks and ad hominem. Like a religious zealot.

In your own words, nothing but mankind can be responsible for climate change. As another member pointed out, this means you do not believe in natural climate change despite thousands of years worth of ice-core and other data that shows the earth has had warmer spells than today for most of history. You believe in climate stasis, which is a ridiculous concept.

Further:

You refuse to acknowledge solar activity and its effect on climate.
You refuse to acknowledge pacific decadal oscillation side-effects.
You refuse to acknowledge the holocene and medieval climate optimums.
You refuse to acknowledge natural variability.
You refuse to embrace complexity.
You refuse to acknowledge natural recovery of global temperatures as we exited the little ice age.
You refuse to acknowledge that carbon dioxide has never driven global temperatures in the past.
You refuse to note that carbon dioxide levels have been higher than present many times in the past.

So comeback when you have some basic science lessons and can actually debate the science that gets posted, instead of trying to pick fights with members.
qfwtf LOL
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
lol

You forgot these two:

Al Gore, College Drop Out, Failed Theologian
Leonardo Di Caprio, College Drop Out, Overactor
How did I forget them?

You're claiming the opinions from some non-climate scientists from completely diverse fields like physics and geology trump what climate scientists have to say, what all the major scientific organizations agree on, and so forth. I'm not basing my opinion on what messengers like Al Gore and (apparently Leo DiCaprio) have to say.

Also, this thread should be locked as spam. Every new thing you did up about global warming should not deserve its own thread. We are just rehashing the same arguments over and over again. We are rehashing the same arguments even more so than in typical political threads because of how specific the subject is and how settled the debate is.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2008, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
What is "normal" climate?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Qp5bxrp-c
You're right, climate change doesn't matter. So, when are you moving to Venus?

BTW, why do you keep linking to YouTube? Do you really think the numa numa guy is on the same level as the majority of the world's scientific expert?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
How did I forget them?

You're claiming the opinions from some non-climate scientists from completely diverse fields like physics and geology trump what climate scientists have to say, what all the major scientific organizations agree on, and so forth.
You're making a highly amateur mistake of not understanding how cross-field scientific research works. Many physicists and geologists are involved in climate research either directly or indirectly. So vast is the field of climatology that it encompasses over a hundred scientific disciplines from geography to history and from astrophysics to palaeontology. Climatology itself is a relatively new scientific category that was previously spread across the many fields, and still today relies on research from other sciences.

You are also falling into the trap of making one set of rules for the public and one set of rules for scientists. It's OK for you to read and study climate research but not OK for a physicist or geologist to do so. The error here is quite glaring and there's something inhumane about it. Scientists tend to be interested in and study much more than their own occupational field of research. And that is even more so the case now that the media and politicians have turned so much attention towards the global warming hysteria that they created (very few scientists at all have contributed to the hysteria aspect).
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:47 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post

BTW, why do you keep linking to YouTube? Do you really think the numa numa guy is on the same level as the majority of the world's scientific expert?
Attack the message not the man.

And then show us this "majority of the world's scientific experts".
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:46 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:45 AM
 
Of course, Wikipedia too also maintains a list some "heretics". Again we see they are some of the best scientists in their fields and from some of the top scientific bodies and institutions in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Let's see some quotes shall we. If you disagree with them then argue rationally why you think they are wrong.
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:46 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:46 AM
 
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.

Reid Bryson, deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.

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

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

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

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:46 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:48 AM
 
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."[22] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[23] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

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

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

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

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

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

Tim Patterson[30], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

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

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."

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."

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."
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:46 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:49 AM
 
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor."

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

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

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:45 AM. )
     
PaperNotes  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 06:52 AM
 
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."

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

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]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."

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[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."
( Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 05:44 AM. )
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 08:05 AM
 
Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change denies in two articles that there were a scientific consensus that global warming were manmade:

The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

by RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 A.M. EDT

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide 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 carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.


Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.

The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.

The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.


Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change.
Source: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/...ml?id=95000606

There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - By Richard S. Lindzen

According to Al Gore’s new film “An Inconvenient Truth,” we’re in for “a planetary emergency”: melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms — unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Gore’s gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush’s obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Gore assures us that “the debate in the scientific community is over.”

That statement, which Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this “debate” actually is in the first place.


The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it.

So, presumably, not all scientists belong to the “consensus.” Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Gore’s preferred global-warming template — namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts.

To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that island land, which is depicted so ominously in Gore’s movie.

In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming. They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don’t know why.


The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia — mosquitoes don’t require tropical warmth.

Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can’t attribute any particular hurricane to global warming.

A general characteristic of Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended — at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.

This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatsoever that carbon dioxide 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 carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.

The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists — especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.

Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.
An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce — if we’re lucky.
Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal © 2006 Dow Jones & Company. All rights reserved.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/a-173632~The...l_warming.html

I quoted these two articles in full in order not to cherrypick quotes that could distort the context.

Taliesin
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Attack the message not the man.
I'm actually attacking the medium.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2008, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Your posts lack any scientific value and aren't worth debate.
<head explodes>
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2008, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
You're making a highly amateur mistake of not understanding how cross-field scientific research works. Many physicists and geologists are involved in climate research either directly or indirectly.
You're condescending here and make assumptions about other members that may not be true (since you've addressed a specific person). Certainly quite a few members here are scientists.

What I find particularly odd is that you mix and match when it is convenient. You are dismissing a majority opinion because of a perceived lack of evidence but embrace opinions that's more to your liking without imposing such scrutiny. You don't even ask for coherence of thought.
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
You are also falling into the trap of making one set of rules for the public and one set of rules for scientists. It's OK for you to read and study climate research but not OK for a physicist or geologist to do so. The error here is quite glaring and there's something inhumane about it.
Inhumane? Aren't you being overly dramatic here?
It's not a question of whether people can read or study the earth's climate. My grandmother could do that. The legitimate criticism is whether these non-experts can have a professional opinion on the subject. Obviously other scientists have a deeper understanding, even if it is just for their analytic way of thinking, but that doesn't make them experts.
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Scientists tend to be interested in and study much more than their own occupational field of research. And that is even more so the case now that the media and politicians have turned so much attention towards the global warming hysteria that they created (very few scientists at all have contributed to the hysteria aspect).
I think you're contributing a lot to the hysteria by calling people who happen to think that man-made contributions to global warming is real `communists.' In German we say that if you point fingers at others, four fingers are pointing at yourself.

Furthermore, I doubt you have read the mass quotes you're expecting others to read. Take this one, for example: the author (if the quote is accurate and in context, but let's assume it is) does not say he doesn't believe anthropogenic global warming is false, but he attributes only one third of the increase in temperature to man.
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
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 [third] to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries."
Shaviv is part of the majority here, the part of the scientific community whose theory you're trying to disprove.

So please, before you mass-post something, read it yourself first and see if it really supports your point of view.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2008, 03:12 PM
 
PaperNotes, produce a peer reviewed study that points to the contrary. Come on, do it. It's been 20 years, surely all those scientists who disagree could produce something. Seriously, anything! It's been 20 years. Do it. Assuming I don't die in the next 70 years, I have time to wait.

Additionally, consensus does not mean unanimous. Your article is completely misleading.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2008, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by PaperNotes View Post
Name your hundreds of thousands and quote them.
I can't quote hundreds of thousands of leading scientists all over the world. Apparently you can misquote and take out of context 650 of them.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2008, 02:13 PM
 
No suprise here, but here's a link that shows more misquoting and misrepresentation by Inhofe of the 650 scientists' quotes.
How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,