The global warming lie

[Mattshark]

You know every year more and more people are realizing what a joke the whole global warming scare is. As of right now, us "skeptics" are the majority in most statistics.

The quote would be too long for my liking to post, but you can read it here.

Yet oddly EVERY major scientific institution in the world disagrees with you.

And you link is just an opinion site, this would be the same US public that prefer creationism to evolution too?

[Wickian]

Yet oddly EVERY major scientific institution in the world disagrees with you.

And you link is just an opinion site, this would be the same US public that prefer creationism to evolution too?

Not really. Tens of thousands of credentialed scientists around the disagree with AGW. I think that counts for something.

[Mattshark]

Not really. Tens of thousands of credentialed scientists around the disagree with AGW. I think that counts for something.

That is a rather liberal estimate.

And yes EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD thinks we have affected climate change. And 44% of the US population not accepting that (the acceptance is far higher in Europe) gives no credence and is not an argument in your favour and the likely hood is that the vast majority of those in that 44% are not scientifically educated.

[cerberusxp]

Got any real science? Not just snippets from a clearly biased site? How about papers that are up to date?

I gave you work from the Royal society and Nature and you counter with this meaningless nonsense.

You also posted from a site sponsor by Exxon Mobile.

So you believe that all through the eons of earths time all the CO2 produced is trapped at the ocean floor? That seems to be what some paid climatologist says. I don't think he believes this himself. My advice to you is get some nice warm clothes, insulate your house and find some other way of heating your house other than gas, oil or electricity because you will not be able to afford it.

That site is Exxon? HMMF So what the sites you're citing are sponsored by whom? Institutions funded by, Oh yes the controlling elite I get it. I've watched the climate go through changes since I was 4 yrs old, that's 46 years, it changes. Greenland used to be warm and green on the southern end enough to grow potatoes. In WWII a fighter crew crash landed on Iceland out of fuel. Close to 15 years ago 1 plane was retrieved they had to go down through the ice and snow something like 65 feet to get to it. The fires of the all the oil wells in Kuwait during the gulf war put tonnes of CO2 into the air raw crude unrefined. What effect did we have for the following few years? Not much! The earth changes period..

By the way are you getting a new job at the missile factory?

Edited January 25, 2009 by cerberusxp

[Mattshark]

So you believe that all through the eons of earths time all the CO2 produced is trapped at the ocean floor? That seems to be what some paid climatologist says. I don't think he believes this himself. My advice to you is get some nice warm clothes, insulate your house and find some other way of heating your house other than gas, oil or electricity because you will not be able to afford it.

That site is Exxon? HMMF So what the sites you're citing are sponsored by whom? Institutions funded by, Oh yes the controlling elite I get it. I've watched the climate go through changes since I was 4 yrs old, that's 46 years, it changes. Greenland used to be warm and green on the southern end enough to grow potatoes. In WWII a fighter crew crash landed on Iceland out of fuel. Close to 15 years ago 1 plane was retrieved they had to go down through the ice and snow something like 65 feet to get to it. The fires of the all the oil wells in Kuwait during the gulf war put tonnes of CO2 into the air raw crude unrefined. What effect did we have for the following few years? Not much! The earth changes period..

By the way are you getting a new job at the missile factory?

Great, I suppose all the climatology units in the world just somehow missed out all the information about climate changing naturally when they drew up their results.

Nature is self funded and the worlds most respected scientific journal. The Royal Society is one of the worlds most prestigious scientific institutions. So if you are going to accuse the people who don't get much money there of fraud you better be able to put a better case than 'NWO conspiracy' Iceland is commonly not covered by ice, it is warmed by the gulf stream. But clearly you are a far better source of information about climate change having watched it all your life! You have made no scientific argument and you are arguing from ignorance.

So unless you can actually make a serious point to show what is wrong with those papers (which I doubt you will) can you at least find some real science?

Why would I get a job a missile factory? I'm a zoologist, what possible job could they give me?

[cerberusxp]

Great, I suppose all the climatology units in the world just somehow missed out all the information about climate changing naturally when they drew up their results.

Nature is self funded and the worlds most respected scientific journal. The Royal Society is one of the worlds most prestigious scientific institutions. So if you are going to accuse the people who don't get much money there of fraud you better be able to put a better case than 'NWO conspiracy' Iceland is commonly not covered by ice, it is warmed by the gulf stream. But clearly you are a far better source of information about climate change having watched it all your life! You have made no scientific argument and you are arguing from ignorance.

So unless you can actually make a serious point to show what is wrong with those papers (which I doubt you will) can you at least find some real science?

Why would I get a job a missile factory? I'm a zoologist, what possible job could they give me?

The Royal Society is one of the worlds most prestigious scientific institutions. The majority of funding from where?

Now there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998. In fact last year the earth cooled so much so that it wiped out all the "global warming" for the past 100 years. This is fact.

To answer the first question there. They conveniently left out crucial data all of 25 points on Gores report.

Joseph Watson on Kerr Emanuel

Graphs

Global cooling for Dummies pt1

Global cooling for Dummies pt2

Global cooling for Dummies pt3

Part 3 deals with the "green house gasses" the "green house effect" was originated in the 1800's we are slightly more advanced than that now. Or is the world still flat to you?

How many species have we lost in 50 years and how many new species have come about?

The 9 times rule

Edited January 25, 2009 by cerberusxp

[Wickian]

That is a rather liberal estimate.

And yes EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD thinks we have affected climate change. And 44% of the US population not accepting that (the acceptance is far higher in Europe) gives no credence and is not an argument in your favour and the likely hood is that the vast majority of those in that 44% are not scientifically educated.

Nothing liberal about it, just fact. Tens of thousands of well reputed scientists believe AGW is a lie. You're stating that because the institutions have a certain point of view right now, it's 100% fact. By conjunction you're implying that they've NEVER been wrong and everything they've ever supported in the past that the science was "settled" in was never wrong?

It's a very bad idea to believe something only because the institutions do without giving mind to the tens of thousands of scientists that both disagree with said institution and compose them.

[Aztur]

Global warming is a fact, it is also a fact that it is a natural occurence, but it is also a fact that humanity speeds up (and worstens) global warming/the greenhouse effect.

The only thing that is still fairly uncertain is exactly how much we contribute.

[cerberusxp]

Global warming is a fact, it is also a fact that it is a natural occurence, but it is also a fact that humanity speeds up (and worstens) global warming/the greenhouse effect.

The only thing that is still fairly uncertain is exactly how much we contribute.

About 3%. The "green house effect THEORY" is 125 years OLD!

I live in Washington state where Mt. St. Helen's blew it's top. All the scientists were predicting that it would devastate crops in the area where the ash fell. We had about 4 inches of ash where we lived. The next few years farmers enjoyed bumper crops. I lived in the wheat belt of the N.W. which produces more wheat per acre than the wheat belt in the Midwest. The most powerful scientific orthodoxy is not very powerful in and of it's self. However, when politicians get involved and socioeconomic issues are present they can push just about anything down our collective throats. Forcing you to pay for something that has 0 value and little validity.

Edited January 26, 2009 by cerberusxp

[Mattshark]

The Royal Society is one of the worlds most prestigious scientific institutions. The majority of funding from where?

Now there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998. In fact last year the earth cooled so much so that it wiped out all the "global warming" for the past 100 years. This is fact.

To answer the first question there. They conveniently left out crucial data all of 25 points on Gores report.

Joseph Watson on Kerr Emanuel

Graphs

Global cooling for Dummies pt1

Global cooling for Dummies pt2

Global cooling for Dummies pt3

Part 3 deals with the "green house gasses" the "green house effect" was originated in the 1800's we are slightly more advanced than that now. Or is the world still flat to you?

How many species have we lost in 50 years and how many new species have come about?

The 9 times rule

The Royal Society is funded by their journal and fees from members.

Your using short term measurements. That is very poor use of figures. The warming trend is still real and last year was still one of the 10 warmest years recorded. So we can dismiss that as simply bad science.

How about comparing that ridiculous claim to NSIDC data?

NSIDC 2008 Arctic review.

Mike Church appears to be a radio host. So well done on the bad sourcing. Sorry but you have completely left science behind there and Icecap US is full of it. They have posted NSIDC data and simply made up analysis from it that and claimed it was what the NSIDC had done, when in fact the NSIDC had given a completely different response.

Are you kidding me, green house gases are a fact. Certain atmospheric gases prevent heat loss from the atmosphere.

You do know the Greeks figured out the world not flat over 2 millennia ago .

You also do know we are in what is currently considered a mass extinction event by many biologists. Though I fail to see the relevance. Oddly enough I have not being counting individual species lost.

As for the last link. He uses data from 1950, his links do not match his tables and he is using local data for global purposes. It is complete crap. There is a reason that is on a site with an agenda and not published in a journal, because it is terrible. The data is awful and outdated, the referencing is almost none existent. I would have been failed if I handed that in during my BSc so producing that as a professional!

Here is a nice real source from you from a very good university.

CRU: University of East Anglia.

Just to add: You have have failed to address either of the scientific papers I have posted on here and the points and the data they have.

BTW before highlighting the term theory, I suggest you look up its scientific meaning (some actual science from you would be nice ).

And there has been a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 attributed to human activity.

[Mattshark]

Nothing liberal about it, just fact. Tens of thousands of well reputed scientists believe AGW is a lie. You're stating that because the institutions have a certain point of view right now, it's 100% fact. By conjunction you're implying that they've NEVER been wrong and everything they've ever supported in the past that the science was "settled" in was never wrong?

It's a very bad idea to believe something only because the institutions do without giving mind to the tens of thousands of scientists that both disagree with said institution and compose them.

It is not a fact at all Wickian.

I'm not suggesting that at all, you are conjecting that, so please don't be so arrogant as to put words into my mouth.

I have actually read actual scientific papers and done work on animal migration that is related to this however.

And the vast majority of the scientific community really do think we are responsible for climate change.

[cerberusxp]

Your using short term measurements. That is very poor use of figures. The warming trend is still real and last year was still one of the 10 warmest years recorded. So we can dismiss that as simply bad science.

How about comparing that ridiculous claim to NSIDC data?

NSIDC 2008 Arctic review.

If you agree to tank the economy of the entire world to combat global warming forcing famine upon 10's of millions is that worth it? Here lets just murder about 2 billion and that will help 2 billion less people breathing will reduce much CO2. My greatest question is why have we not been able to recreate photosynthesis.

Refer to the graphs over a few thousand years.

Look both our countries are BANKRUPT. We cannot afford all the extra imposed taxes.

Scientists refute

1) Can we affect the sun in any way?

2) Can we affect our orbit in any way?

3) Can you stop global warming?

Of course the answer is NO we can do little to effect this. Now lets look at what is proposed. Cap and trade: this does nothing, as it limits or taxes developed nations while no limits are imposed on growing nations spewing far more CO2 into the atmosphere, tell me how that does anything?

I have a theory of my own about the CO2 levels of the past, I think these levels are actually a by product of something they have overlooked. You can no more stop or even slow global warming than you can move Saturn out of it's orbit.

There have always been warming and cooling. There have always been world conflagrations also in past times a great many volcanoes erupted at the same time. Mountains rose and fell practically over night. The idea that everything that has happened in the times of mans existence has been slow and easy is wrong.

The earth CHANGES get used to it.

Species die off new species emerge the earth warms and cools, it goes through great hemorrhages and Changes. The idea that we can stop any of this is absurd. Sure we can do what we can to prevent these things but ultimately history shows everything man has done nature itself rules. The mid Atlantic rift for one thing shows the earth is twisting in half It goes all the way around the world. Do you think we mere humans can stop that too?

Making laws that leverage my labor for yours or anyones causes no matter how important is SLAVERY...

Edited January 31, 2009 by cerberusxp

[Mattshark]

Your using short term measurements. That is very poor use of figures. The warming trend is still real and last year was still one of the 10 warmest years recorded. So we can dismiss that as simply bad science.

How about comparing that ridiculous claim to NSIDC data?

NSIDC 2008 Arctic review.

If you agree to tank the economy of the entire world to combat global warming forcing famine upon 10's of millions is that worth it? Here lets just murder about 2 billion and that will help 2 billion less people breathing will reduce much CO2. My greatest question is why have we not been able to recreate photosynthesis.

Refer to the graphs over a few thousand years.

Look both our countries are BANKRUPT. We cannot afford all the extra imposed taxes.

Scientists refute

1) Can we affect the sun in any way?

2) Can we affect our orbit in any way?

3) Can you stop global warming?

Of course the answer is NO we can do little to effect this. Now lets look at what is proposed. Cap and trade: this does nothing, as it limits or taxes developed nations while no limits are imposed on growing nations spewing far more CO2 into the atmosphere, tell me how that does anything?

I have a theory of my own about the CO2 levels of the past, I think these levels are actually a by product of something they have overlooked. You can no more stop or even slow global warming than you can move Saturn out of it's orbit.

There have always been warming and cooling. There have always been world conflagrations also in past times a great many volcanoes erupted at the same time. Mountains rose and fell practically over night. The idea that everything that has happened in the times of mans existence has been slow and easy is wrong.

The earth CHANGES get used to it.

Species die off new species emerge the earth warms and cools, it goes through great hemorrhages and Changes. The idea that we can stop any of this is absurd. Sure we can do what we can to prevent these things but ultimately history shows everything man has done nature itself rules. The mid Atlantic rift for one thing shows the earth is twisting in half It goes all the way around the world. Do you think we mere humans can stop that too?

Making laws that leverage my labor for yours or anyones causes no matter how important is SLAVERY...

You refute my articles with a book review from a right wing think tank?

You think climatologist didn't already take into account natural changes?

So are you going to both to post some science?

[Rafe]

So then, are we then the cause of Mars ice caps melting? as well as the melting moons of Saturn and Jupiter?

Wow... our CO2 emissions must be quite something to transit space!

Or perhaps we will quote David De Rothchild (spokesperson for Global climate change awareness and advocate of the Carbon Tax) when he claimed the reasons for Mars/Jupiter/Saturn moons warming was because they are closer to the sun than earth...ROFL!!!

Yes I'm serious... he DID say that.

I was going to mention the other planets around earth but then i came to the last post reading about it.

( Here is the radio interview with David

I received the link without warning and so his comment caught me by surprise and almost had me rolling on the floor.you can almost feel his uncertainty right after his claim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuNLahhZFJ0 )

I must say that even when Al gore came out with his documentary and tour had a hard time believing him.Wich was strange because i had at that time no evidence to the contrary myself i just had this feeling about it,Maybe i just dont trust Gore but then again i hardly knew the man.The fact that the other planets are heating up as well is a very big point in the matter given the history of the planets climate and its changes and how the sun always played the big part in it.Yet this is hardly discussed on things like TV or big newspapers but i do hear of the carbon tax.

In a way people are forced into a certain idea.Even though they have the freedom to look things like this up for themselves most wont and most know this,This is what I call "A convenient truth " really.

Most of the time i intently do not make up my mind as much about anything but looking back i dont have much of a choice.

Why all the propoganda ,Newspapers citing global warming in growing intensity years later ending up with "Al gore" touring the world and selling a DVD about it worldwide and in the end politics campaigning carbon TAX (Yes yet another TAX to solve a problem)...

While in all this time we could have comercialized dozens of other already filed pattents for transportation,oil and energy harvesting. Yet all this effort and money has been spent on comercials about global warming (including mr.Gore's) debates and lobeying that seem to, and point only to one of those dozens of solutions ..

"Carbon Tax".

Wich in my own opinion is the least effective and most destructive solution in anyway.

It allows for people to still "abuse" the planet as they say we/you/me do, but only as long as their is payment for it to do so.Instead of really trying to switch to alternate ways for fuel and energy for wich there hase been no signifancent funding or effort.I suspect their has been more money pored into the effort of pushing global warming into the picture and lobeying for carbon tax then all other options availlable.

Ask yourself this.will they ,once they start receiving this carbon tax use this collected tax to produce alternatives for fuel and energy ? Has anyone ?

One thing i have not seen is any talk about this sort use of the soon to be collected tax.To me this is a bit suspicious and if that where the intend it would have been the founding intend of the entire concept and be talked about in a buzz!

If at this very moment with the situation as it stands now , it where up to me !? i would say show me where it says our alternate solutions,patents etc are not possible and/or as effective as the " carbon tax"

I am not rying to press my opinion up to anyone but this is what i see and i think no one should try there best not to see EVEN IF IT TURNS OUT NOT TO BE TRUE AT ALL AND I WAS OFF BY A LANDSLIDE,this should be looked at very closely.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Rafe

[Mattshark]

I was going to mention the other planets around earth but then i came to the last post reading about it.

( Here is the radio interview with David

I received the link without warning and so his comment caught me by surprise and almost had me rolling on the floor.you can almost feel his uncertainty right after his claim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuNLahhZFJ0 )

I must say that even when Al gore came out with his documentary and tour had a hard time believing him.Wich was strange because i had at that time no evidence to the contrary myself i just had this feeling about it,Maybe i just dont trust Gore but then again i hardly knew the man.The fact that the other planets are heating up as well is a very big point in the matter given the history of the planets climate and its changes and how the sun always played the big part in it.Yet this is hardly discussed on things like TV or big newspapers but i do hear of the carbon tax.

In a way people are forced into a certain idea.Even though they have the freedom to look things like this up for themselves most wont and most know this,This is what I call "A convenient truth " really.

Most of the time i intently do not make up my mind as much about anything but looking back i dont have much of a choice.

Why all the propoganda ,Newspapers citing global warming in growing intensity years later ending and up with "Al gore" touring the world and selling a DVD about it worldwide and in the end politics campaigning carbon TAX (Yes yet another TAX to solve a problem)...

While in all this time we could have comercialized dozens of other already filed pattents for transportation,oil and energy harvesting. Yet all this effort and money has been spent on comercials about global warming (including mr.Gore's) debates and lobeying that seem to, and point only to one of those dozens of solutions ..

"Carbon Tax".

Wich in my own opinion is the least effective and most destructive solution in anyway.

It allows for people to still "abuse" the planet as they say we/you/me do, but only as long as their is payment for it to do so.Instead of really trying to switch to alternate ways for fuel and energy for wich there hase been no signifancent funding or effort.I suspect their has been more money pored into the effort of pushing global warming into the picture and lobeying for carbon tax then all other options availlable.

Ask yourself this.will they ,once they start receiving this carbon tax use this collected tax to produce alternatives for fuel and energy ? Has anyone ?

One thing i have not seen is any talk about this sort use of the soon to be collected tax.To me this is a bit suspicious and if that where the intend it would have been the founding intend of the entire concept and be talked about in a buzz!

If at this very moment with the situation as it stands now , it where up to me !? i would say show me where it says our alternate solutions,patents etc are not possible and/or as effective as the " carbon tax"

I am not rying to press my opinion up to anyone but this is what i see and i think no one should try there best not to see EVEN IF IT TURNS OUT NOT TO BE TRUE AT ALL AND I WAS OFF BY A LANDSLIDE,this should be looked at very closely.

sorry for the collum

EDIT

I meant to say "rant"

Did you read the papers I posted or looked at the other scientific evidence?

[thefinalfrontier]

So then, are we then the cause of Mars ice caps melting? as well as the melting moons of Saturn and Jupiter?

Wow... our CO2 emissions must be quite something to transit space!

Or perhaps we will quote David De Rothchild (spokesperson for Global climate change awareness and advocate of the Carbon Tax) when he claimed the reasons for Mars/Jupiter/Saturn moons warming was because they are closer to the sun than earth...ROFL!!!

Yes I'm serious... he DID say that.

There is no melting of saturn and jupiters moons, Can you kindly provide links from reliable sources such as Nasa or the ESA? I study space all the time and never heard any of this,

Edited February 1, 2009 by thefinalfrontier

[Rafe]

There is no melting of saturn and jupiters moons, Can you kindly provide links from reliable sources such as Nasa or the ESA? I study space all the time and never heard any of this,

My guess was that Magnatude simply worded it wrong.Reading between the lines i think he was simply refering to how these planets are heating up as well.

one thing that is compelling to me is that up until now the heating up and cooling of the earth has been practicly paralell as to that of mars.This is being debated as well as to be a to be a coincidence along with the warming up of triton,pluto and jupiter.There are reasons being debated for those planets as to why they are heating up and following those reasons they should all have their own and coincidently occur alongside each other together with earths warming.

Unlikely but not impossible from my point of view.

Mattshark i looked into the PDF you posted and read part of it.I will finish it when i have time for it but so far i must say it is yet another study clamiming and "proving" much like others arguing ,claimimg and "proving against it.You seem to have made up your mind already while the entire scientific (pls forget the politic

) community is sill debating this.With this i am saying not to shut your thoughts of to anything else and limit yourself.

(I said to forget the politic community only because my previous post was mainly aimed at it and the thread seems to be going towards the scientific right now as i think it would only be confusing the thread)

[Mattshark]

My guess was that Magnatude simply worded it wrong.Reading between the lines i think he was simply refering to how these planets are heating up as well.

one thing that is compelling to me is that up until now the heating up and cooling of the earth has been practicly paralell as to that of mars.This is being debated as well as to be a to be a coincidence along with the warming up of triton,pluto and jupiter.There are reasons being debated for those planets as to why they are heating up and following those reasons they should all have their own and coincidently occur alongside each other together with earths warming.

Unlikely but not impossible from my point of view.

Mattshark i looked into the PDF you posted and read part of it.I will finish it when i have time for it but so far i must say it is yet another study clamiming and "proving" much like others arguing ,claimimg and "proving against it.You seem to have made up your mind already while the entire scientific (pls forget the politic

) community is sill debating this.With this i am saying not to shut your thoughts of to anything else and limit yourself.

(I said to forget the politic community only because my previous post was mainly aimed at it and the thread seems to be going towards the scientific right now as i think it would only be confusing the thread)

The thing is it is a myth that entire solar system is warming up or that Mars has paralleled heating to Earth, it hasn't.

Nature and the Royal Society are 2 of the best sources you can get.

There is actually not that much debate with in the scientific community. Every major scientific institution and the vast majority of scientist working in climate affected fields support this.

You do know about standards for doing and publishing a scientific study don't you. Because your comment makes it sound like you have little experience of real scientific literature.

[MrRandomGuy]

I've read through this thread, and noticed a lot of science is put into it. Well, I don't need science to debunk global warming. It's actually pretty simple.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...44914-2,00.html

I would suggest you read the entire article. I'm going to pull bits and pieces of it. By the way, this is an article around 30 years ago that had a lot of hype about global cooling.

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

So now let's have a quick overview of what the extremists said then.

1. The earth was getting colder for the past three decades.

2. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

3. The weather could cause another ice age

4. Man is responsible because of farming (lol) and fuel burning.

Now if we apply those 4 concepts and change it to fit global warming, an interesting thing happens.

1. The earth is getting warmer for the past three decades.

2. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

4. This weather could cause (insert whatever disasters are here, oceans rising, mass flooding, etc.)

5. Man is responsible because of fuel burning.

Now why on earth should we believe in global warming when scientists were worried 30 years ago about global cooling and used the same primary catalyst - man?

The truth is simple. Yes global warming is real, just like global cooling is real. However, it is not caused by humans and it cannot be prevented by humans. It doesn't hurt to do your part for the environment, but please do it for the right reasons. Virtually all scientists who say global warming is caused by humans have something to gain politically and therefore their results are skewed to benefit their political agenda, whatever it may be.

Edited February 1, 2009 by MrRandomGuy

[Dredimus]

A few direct quotes from those in the Scientific Field of Study...

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

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

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith

Now, for anyone to sit there and call the Minority Report "Crap" they must not have read it, or understood what an asinine statement they were making. The fact is.. the UN ICPP report was writtin by 52 scientist/scholars that were being paid a goodly sum.... then you have this report... 650 scientist... all among the best in their field... requesting no payout... and they have all come to the same conclusion...

Oh, and heres how I see it... the south is KNOWN for their hot summers and mild winters... guess what.. the summer of 2008.. I didnt see it get over 103 in my home town (usually hits atleast 110), and this winter... we have had temps ranging from -3 to 6 degrees, with most days not getting out of the lower 20's... So much for that warming bologna....

[Mattshark]

A few direct quotes from those in the Scientific Field of Study...

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

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

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith

Now, for anyone to sit there and call the Minority Report "Crap" they must not have read it, or understood what an asinine statement they were making. The fact is.. the UN ICPP report was writtin by 52 scientist/scholars that were being paid a goodly sum.... then you have this report... 650 scientist... all among the best in their field... requesting no payout... and they have all come to the same conclusion...

Oh, and heres how I see it... the south is KNOWN for their hot summers and mild winters... guess what.. the summer of 2008.. I didnt see it get over 103 in my home town (usually hits atleast 110), and this winter... we have had temps ranging from -3 to 6 degrees, with most days not getting out of the lower 20's... So much for that warming bologna....

That is 4 people. More people wrote the 2 papers I posted.

And your local weather for one year is not climate and hence is pretty much irrelevant to all of this. So before you comment on climate, learn what it actually is.

[Dredimus]

That is 4 people. More people wrote the 2 papers I posted.

And your local weather for one year is not climate and hence is pretty much irrelevant to all of this. So before you comment on climate, learn what it actually is.

How about reading for a change? those quotes were from the Minority report... and only a few quotes from the 650 that wrote the report... So.. zip it... Mr. Snippy.

[MrRandomGuy]

That is 4 people. More people wrote the 2 papers I posted.

And your local weather for one year is not climate and hence is pretty much irrelevant to all of this. So before you comment on climate, learn what it actually is.

Just because more people wrote it doesn't mean they are right. After all, in Galileo's time more people thought the sun revolved around the earth.

[Dredimus]

Just because more people wrote it doesn't mean they are right. After all, in Galileo's time more people thought the sun revolved around the earth.

Oh, I can agree, Quantity does not mean Quality. But if Shark would care to take a delve into the Quality and Caliber of the people that had a hand in writing the Minority report, he would have no choice but to admit that there may be something for him to think about. All 650 of the people who took part in this report were/are the top in their fields. 80% of which work within the Federal Government. the other 20% College Professors and Masters at their trade aswell. I keep seeing all this preaching about Science... follow the science... yet when some one brings this report up, no one wants to hear it because it does not fit within what they have believed for so long.

[Admiral Danger]

never believed in global warming since i knew about it!