Are the sceptics really a myth?

[brave_new_world]

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

December 11, 2008

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

INTRODUCTION:

Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

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

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

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

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

#

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0B-BD9FAF4DCDB7

Since global warming has become more political more than anything else I put the topic here. Any thoughts anyone? (my emphasis)

[chaoszerg]

I don't believe man is the source of global warming but I do think we play a part in it.

[chemical-licker]

nope cant think what global warming is but i will figure it out though

[ExpandMyMind]

i've read the minority report before. it's really quite eye opening. but it's sad to see that anything they say seems to fall on deaf ears... i even saw one person dismiss it as being from failed scientists. absurd when you actually research who was speaking.

there was a more recent meeting in new york, january of this year between many scientists debating the theory of man made global warming/climate change.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

from the link you can get the transcript and also the recorded version of the gathering i think. several experts on many of the feilds that are included in global warming.

it is in no way a concensus.

[brave_new_world]

i've read the minority report before. it's really quite eye opening. but it's sad to see that anything they say seems to fall on deaf ears... i even saw one person dismiss it as being from failed scientists. absurd when you actually research who was speaking.

there was a more recent meeting in new york, january of this year between many scientists debating the theory of man made global warming/climate change.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

from the link you can get the transcript and also the recorded version of the gathering i think. several experts on many of the feilds that are included in global warming.

it is in no way a concensus.

Thank you for this link.

[ExpandMyMind]

Thank you for this link.

no worries

[SQLserver]

700 compared to millions?

Here are the actual statistics:

1. One study analyzed 928 random abstracts. 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The following scientific organizations endorsed the view that fossil fuels contribute towards climate change:

1. Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil

2. Académie des Sciences, France

3. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy

4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

5. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada

7. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany

8. Science Council of Japan, Japan

9. Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa

10. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

11. Indian National Science Academy, India

12. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico

13. Royal Society, United Kingdom

1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

3. Royal Society, United Kingdom

4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil

6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada

7. Academié des Sciences, France

8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany

9. Indian National Science Academy, India

10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy

11. Science Council of Japan, Japan

1. Australian Academy of Sciences

2. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

3. Brazilian Academy of Sciences

4. Royal Society of Canada

5. Caribbean Academy of Sciences

6. Chinese Academy of Sciences

7. French Academy of Sciences

8. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina

9. Indian National Science Academy

10. Indonesian Academy of Sciences

11. Royal Irish Academy

12. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

13. Academy of Sciences Malaysia

14. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

15. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

16. Royal Society (UK)

So did these:

American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)

Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization

Woods Hole Research Center

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

National Research Council

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Federal Climate Change Science Program

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability

American Geophysical Union

Geological Society of America

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

American Association of State Climatologists

US Geological Survey (USGS)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute

World Meteorological Organization

United Nations Environment Program

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

International Council on Science

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

American Astronomical Society

The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society

American Institute of Physics

Pew Center on Climate Change

World Wildlife Fund

So did the peer review journal Science/AAAS.

So did more than 15,000 scientists listed by name, including 52 nobel laureates, 195 members of the National Academies,

So did the ENTIRE Texas A&M - Department of Atmospheric Sciences. It was a Unanimous Endorsement of the IPCC.

Another independent study showed that 97% of active climatologists accept that human activity is causing global warming.

Are Scientists being "pressured" into accepting global warming? Actually, the magazine New Scientist found more cases of scientists being pressured by lobbyists to reject global warming.

But, of course, the conservative Heartland institute compiled a list of 500 scientists who supposedly are skeptical of global warming.

Only 122 of the scientists on the list were contacted about their inclusion on it. Of those 112, 45 immediately replied within hours expressing outrage that they were included on the list, and demanded that their names be taken off.

What happened? They refused, of course.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, that's the list already given in this thread. It contains 45 confirmed lies, and an unknown number of unconfirmed lies.

If we were to assume the same ratio, we can approximate that about 200 of the scientists on the list should not be on it.

So, it's less than 300 known scientists to literally tens of thousands of scientists, 97% of active climatologists, nearly 100% of all peer-reviewed papers, and every major scientific organization on the planet.

To answer your question: Yes. It is a myth that a large portion of the scientific community is skeptical of global warming. The skeptics are an extreme minority.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Edited April 30, 2009 by SQLserver

[brave_new_world]

700 compared to millions?

Here are the actual statistics:

1. One study analyzed 928 random abstracts. 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The following scientific organizations endorsed the view that fossil fuels contribute towards climate change:

1. Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil

2. Académie des Sciences, France

3. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy

4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

5. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada

7. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany

8. Science Council of Japan, Japan

9. Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa

10. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

11. Indian National Science Academy, India

12. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico

13. Royal Society, United Kingdom

1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

3. Royal Society, United Kingdom

4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil

6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada

7. Academié des Sciences, France

8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany

9. Indian National Science Academy, India

10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy

11. Science Council of Japan, Japan

1. Australian Academy of Sciences

2. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

3. Brazilian Academy of Sciences

4. Royal Society of Canada

5. Caribbean Academy of Sciences

6. Chinese Academy of Sciences

7. French Academy of Sciences

8. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina

9. Indian National Science Academy

10. Indonesian Academy of Sciences

11. Royal Irish Academy

12. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

13. Academy of Sciences Malaysia

14. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

15. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

16. Royal Society (UK)

So did these:

American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)

Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization

Woods Hole Research Center

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

National Research Council

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Federal Climate Change Science Program

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability

American Geophysical Union

Geological Society of America

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

American Association of State Climatologists

US Geological Survey (USGS)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute

World Meteorological Organization

United Nations Environment Program

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

International Council on Science

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

American Astronomical Society

The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society

American Institute of Physics

Pew Center on Climate Change

World Wildlife Fund

So did the peer review journal Science/AAAS.

So did more than 10,600 scientists listed by name, including 52 nobel laureates, 195 members of the National Academies,

So did the ENTIRE Texas A&M - Department of Atmospheric Sciences. It was a Unanimous Endorsement of the IPCC.

Another independent study showed that 97% of active climatologists accept that human activity is causing global warming.

Are Scientists being "pressured" into accepting global warming? Actually, the magazine New Scientist found more cases of scientists being pressured by lobbyists to reject global warming.

But, of course, the conservative Heartland institute compiled a list of 500 scientists who supposedly are skeptical of global warming.

Only 122 of the scientists on the list were contacted about their inclusion on it. Of those 112, 45 immediately replied within hours expressing outrage that they were included on the list, and demanded that their names be taken off.

What happened? They refused, of course.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, that's the list already given in this thread. It contains 45 confirmed lies, and an unknown number of unconfirmed lies.

If we were to assume the same ratio, we can approximate that about 200 of the scientists on the list should not be on it.

So, it's less than 300 known scientists to literally tens of thousands of scientists, 97% of active climatologists, nearly 100% of all peer-reviewed papers, and every major scientific organization on the planet.

To answer your question: Yes. It is a myth that a large portion of the scientific community is skeptical of global warming. The skeptics are an extreme minority.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Millions? Wow. This consensus is getting bigger all the time!

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming. (LINK)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0B-BD9FAF4DCDB7

So now there is more than a dozen official dissenters (others wont come forward because of intimidation) and so there are now millions of scientists who are all man-made global warming. It all comes down to what info you want to believe:

New study finds IPCC "consensus" an "illusion"

An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."

The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all."

Let me repeat the key point here: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...C4-B364B623ADA3

What about the fact that the IPCC itself adjusts info for its own agenda?

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science.

Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN:

"I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," Landsea added.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...C4-B364B623ADA3

I am blown away though....Millions of man made global warming scientists.

In that list you mention the: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

Well if the other organizations are anything like them then how can they be trusted since the Goddard Institute of Space have been supposedly proven to lie about their info?

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Monday, November 17, 2008

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

and this:

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientist...al-warming.html

I think there is still room for debate. If NASA have to lie about their information (even if non-made made global warming supporters do the same), then there must be more research, experiment and debate. I doubt it is a closed issue.

[brave_new_world]

700 compared to millions?

Here are the actual statistics:

1. One study analyzed 928 random abstracts. 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Interestingly enough I over read this part. Michael criton has something to say about this (Tim Ball a climatologist believes his science is first rate by the way):

DR. CRICHTON: Work on it. (Laughter.) But "collusion" is a strong word. Let me reframe. I think that there are certain kinds of stories that certain journalists find simply irresistible, whether they're accurate or not. I'll give you a recent one. A historian of science named Naomi Oreskes, was invited to write up an essay in "Science" magazine which has been widely reported since. She claimed that she'd inspected the abstracts of 928 articles on climate science from 1993 to 2003 and she had not found a single one which disagreed with the notion that climate change was human caused.

Now, the first thing to recognize is that if you are a reporter following climate science, when you hear 928 articles in 10 years, you immediately know something's wrong. Because the number is far too low. And, in fact, the number of climate articles in the last ten years is closer to 12,000. So, somehow her keyword search was inadequate.

The second thing is that because the exact number of 928 was reported, it is possible to work out which keywords she used to get that number and, therefore, to go back and obtain the actual abstracts that she said she had read. People are doing this. And I'm told, as a preliminary finding, that the claim that none of them contain any negative comment about global warming is far from the truth.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-sciencepolicy.html

I dont know how much of the consensus is real or just hyped up.

[SQLserver]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you made 3 points. I will address each, and then I'll show you the points that I put forth already that you didn't address.

1. Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

Yet, I've already given lists of dozens of scientific organizations and a petition of over 15,000 scientists who agree with the claim. In fact, almost every major scientific organization on the planet has agreed with the IPCC.

...

What's your point? Just because some scientists did not "Specificallly endorse" it does not mean that they didn't support it like the rest of the scientific world.

2. NASA made a mistake in calling one October the hottest year on record.

They made a mistake and they acknowledged the mistake, apologizing for it. This was one small glitch; almost completely irrelevant to the massive amount of data collected from many independent sources. It has almost no effect, and you have no evidence to assume that they purposefully lied about it.

In other words, this small mistake had absolutely no effect on the science and evidence of global warming.

3. Naomi Oreskes' study was flawed, because she only looked at 928 abstracts and because she may have misinterpreted the views of some abstracts.

OF COURSE she only looked at 928 abstracts! These abstracts, picked randomly, effectively mimic all 12,000 abstracts. This is ALWAYS how scientific studies are conducted in a large population.

Do you think pollsters ask every single person in America who they are going to vote for? No, they only ask less a few thousand people.

Critchon has displayed an astounding lack of knowledge here on how basic scientific studies are conducted.

Secondly, until some actual serious evidence arises that the study was flawed, your claim is bunk. Quite literally, a science fiction writer said: "Well, you know, a friend of my sister kinda said some of it might sorta be wrong!". This is not exactly enough evidence to dispute a study published in a peer-review major scientific journal.

Conclusion.

Your first point missed the larger picture, your second point detailed a mistake that is irrelevant, and your third point is a baseless claim that blatantly misunderstands how scientific studies are done, and is made by a science fiction writer.

Now, you missed several of my earlier points. Here they are again.

1. The Heartland Institute's "500 global warming skeptics" list has 45 confirmed lies. They had to lie to come up with 500 scientists!(LOL!) 45 out of 112 contacted scientists were outraged to be on their list; if we assume that this ratio is the same, then the list would have lied about 200 scientists!

2. 52 Nobel Laureates and over 15,000 climate scientists have endorsed the IPCC position.

3. Almost every major scientific organization on the planet, each with hundreds to thousands of members, has endorsed the IPCC decision.

4. One survey found that 97% of climatologists accepted that global warming is caused by man.

You may now respond to those points.

Cheers,

SQLserver

[brave_new_world]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you made 3 points. I will address each, and then I'll show you the points that I put forth already that you didn't address.

Yet, I've already given lists of dozens of scientific organizations and a petition of over 15,000 scientists who agree with the claim. In fact, almost every major scientific organization on the planet has agreed with the IPCC.

...

What's your point? Just because some scientists did not "Specificallly endorse" it does not mean that they didn't support it like the rest of the scientific world.

They made a mistake and they acknowledged the mistake, apologizing for it. This was one small glitch; almost completely irrelevant to the massive amount of data collected from many independent sources. It has almost no effect, and you have no evidence to assume that they purposefully lied about it.

In other words, this small mistake had absolutely no effect on the science and evidence of global warming.

A very convenient glitch! A good thing sceptical thinking pointed out the mistake. Completely irrelevant?! Like the time when nasa said that the hottest decade was 1990 when it was actually 1930? All these little mistakes. . .

OF COURSE she only looked at 928 abstracts! These abstracts, picked randomly, effectively mimic all 12,000 abstracts. This is ALWAYS how scientific studies are conducted in a large population.

Do you think pollsters ask every single person in America who they are going to vote for? No, they only ask less a few thousand people.

Critchon has displayed an astounding lack of knowledge here on how basic scientific studies are conducted.

Secondly, until some actual serious evidence arises that the study was flawed, your claim is bunk. Quite literally, a science fiction writer said: "Well, you know, a friend of my sister kinda said some of it might sorta be wrong!". This is not exactly enough evidence to dispute a study published in a peer-review major scientific journal.

I would suggest you read through what articles she picked randomly. They may not all be agreeing with her. Also Michael Criton's science intelligence is greater than that of Al Gore's. You think he displays lack of knowledge? Here are someof his speeches on these issues. Read and judge for yourself:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-oure...ntalfuture.html

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-complexity.html

Conclusion.

Your first point missed the larger picture, your second point detailed a mistake that is irrelevant, and your third point is a baseless claim that blatantly misunderstands how scientific studies are done, and is made by a science fiction writer.

Let me mention that he isnt just a science fiction writer but a medical doctor. His intelligence shows in this debate:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-iq2debate-part1.html

Also climatologist Tim Ball says his science is first rate.

Now, you missed several of my earlier points. Here they are again.

1. The Heartland Institute's "500 global warming skeptics" list has 45 confirmed lies. They had to lie to come up with 500 scientists!(LOL!) 45 out of 112 contacted scientists were outraged to be on their list; if we assume that this ratio is the same, then the list would have lied about 200 scientists!

Only if you believe DESMOGBLOG. A site which fully believes the poltically manipulated IPCC. I am unsure whether to believe this about. DESMOGBLOG

That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific consensus in history, advising that:

* climate change is real;

* it is caused by human activity; and

* it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

Another thing. People for an example who were on the list i.e Dr. Svante Bjorck of Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University who said:

"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!", In Richard little's article

were under this section of the minority report list:

Sampling of inconvenient scientific developments in 2007 for proponents of

catastrophic man-made global warming: [updated - 12-24-2007]

An April 2007 study revealed the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000

years, according to Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan

Hammarlund of Lund University. Excerpt: During the last 10,000 years climate has been

seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings

presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north

have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe

may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. < > We can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South

Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa. This is most certainly

related to large-scale ocean circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. The main current system -

"the Great Ocean Conveyor" - is driven by sinking of dense, relatively cold and salty water

in the northern North Atlantic. This results in southward-flowing deep-water that is

replaced by warm surface water brought to high northern latitudes from the tropics and

ultimately from the South Atlantic, says Svante Björck. < > Our results from Nightingale

Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the

first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the

north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research. (LINK)

Here is a link to where the people putting the list together got this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70428170229.htm

Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2007) — During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

We don’t know with certainty what will happen. Some attempts at measuring ocean currents suggest a recent weakening of the Gulf Stream, and the transport of heat to the North Atlantic region may well decrease in the future as a result of increased precipitation. Such a scenario might lead to less warming in Europe than predicted by the IPCC, but we will probably not face an arctic climate, summarizes Svante Björck.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70428170229.htm

So he may very well believe in man-made global warming but says that it may not be as warm as the IPCC suggests. They are his words.

This list itself doesnt say he disagrees with man-made global warming, they just list his findings. Anyways I am going to write to him personally to find out myself what he thinks. So I'll post it up when I get a reply.

The IPPC Have also various glaring lies. The main one being the classic 'Hocky stick' which when was first produced was used to promote the theory:

ACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the ’spin’ that the IPCC and media put on their findings. The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments (to create urgency) — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians and many of them strongly disagree. This is not science. It's political propaganda.

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/top-...mate-myths.html

2. 52 Nobel Laureates and over 15,000 climate scientists have endorsed the IPCC position.

Interestingly enough I didnt claim that the consensus was on the non man-made global warming. And consensus is never the way science advances. It advances via testing and falsification. If the consensus of scientists said that the continents didnt move then would they be right?

3. Almost every major scientific organization on the planet, each with hundreds to thousands of members, has endorsed the IPCC decision.

Doesnt mean they are right. It only takes one scientist to prove them wrong.

4. One survey found that 97% of climatologists accepted that global warming is caused by man.

You may now respond to those points.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Again, doesnt mean that they are correct. Also it was said that the consensus in the 70's (there actually wasnt according to some) there was going to be catastrophe from global cooling.

We must deal with climate change now!

"We simply cannot afford to gamble...by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting responsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.

--1978, Lowell Ponte, The cooling page 237

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-complexity.html

Edited May 1, 2009 by brave_new_world

[Eldorado]

Michael Crichton? The guy who was a science-fiction writer and medical practitioner?

He may have been the man for the moment when you've got flu or want a bedtime story, but i'd rather listen to climatologists with regard to possible climate changes.

[brave_new_world]

Michael Crichton? The guy who was a science-fiction writer and medical practitioner?

He may have been the man for the moment when you've got flu or want a bedtime story, but i'd rather listen to climatologists with regard to possible climate changes.

Some would rather listen to politician Al Gore.

[Eldorado]

"Some would rather listen to politician Al Gore."

Well, they'd be better listening to climatologists.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Eldorado

[randym23]

I think global warming does occur naturally in phases,

HOWEVER, I think our byproducts and pollution are speeding up

the natural process.

[danielost]

I don't believe man is the source of global warming but I do think we play a part in it.

yes but how much 1%, 5% or 10%

[AROCES]

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

I am for pollution awareness. But there are those who are obssess with it indeed, Al Gore for one.

[blinky]

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

December 11, 2008

(... )

Since global warming has become more political more than anything else I put the topic here. Any thoughts anyone? (my emphasis)

yeah, well, personally? I think it's less "politics" and more "true love"! - make that "true WUB" - Wheels Under Bums!

Let's face it: People are lazy, and they like going fast, effortlessly! it's empowering! especially for people with NO POWER!

They like the "control" they feel, cornering thru an S-curve.

They like the slight G-force exerted as they accelerate.

They like the feeling of flying low.

It's so cool! And so unreal. and so obvious!

There just HAS to be a price for it!

It's about a definite disconnectedness that "the car" has wrought, between human beings and the rreality of this marvelous planet - the only one like it for a million light years in any given direction that we can use

THAT is why the climate is in crisis - there's no doubt, despite the contrary "logic" coughed up by "scientists"

(as Wm S. Burroughs has said, "there's nothing too *** dirty for a scientist!"... bang on!)

we take too much for granted - our internally-combusted boosters don't just burn fuel - they also burn oxygen - as ancient as it gets - the same oxygen breathed by dinosaurs and pharoahs - breathing furiously, in and out - one comparison I read said that One, one-way flight, from NY to Rome, in a 747, consumes as much oxygen ( mixed with fuel and burned, and exhausted - that's the vapor-trail) as a herd of elephants do in their lifetime

where's the human scale in all this? LOST! to zoomin', that's where

awkward, and vulnerable, without our wheels, we're gonna drive until either the last drop of fuel is exhausted into the mysterious sky, OR the sky simply collapses - weather-wise - around us

I don't think one of those scientists really care

that's blinky's 90 mph TAKE on it

There's the wub!

[ExpandMyMind]

haha. well i'm sorry for being a bit tooo wasted... as this is a very important subject...(imo) which i will definately comment on.... but at this moment in time...

i just wanna enjoy the world!!

..................

[Paracelse]

<!--quoteo(post=2866185:date=Apr 30 2009, 05:09 PM:name=brave_new_world)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (brave_new_world @ Apr 30 2009, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2866185"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” </b>- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am for pollution awareness. But there are those who are obssess with it indeed, Al Gore for one.

Some people tend to forget how bad Al gore carbon foot print is

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

Being aware of pollution is indeed a big step forward, we do have to study renewable energy sources but should someone start looking into the overpopulation problem?