Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL

[Bullreds & Greenheads]

Can somebody please send me a bar of soap, some deodorant, and maybe some good-smelling aftershave. I evidently have a hygene problem.

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Consensus?? Ahem.................................


Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
December 11, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 7:45 AM ET

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of casualties and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

Related Links:

New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect'

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

# # #

[wilkat7]

"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.


-That would be a big 10-4

[Po Monkey Lounger]

A big affirmative there to ya, brother trucker.

[JJ McGuire]

The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD

Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.


A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.

The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.

15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.

15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.

4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.

Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?

CommentsThe above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.

The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.

The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.

The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.

Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.

Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.

[JJ McGuire]

Global Warming on Other Planets

Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, Pluto, and others share the fate of Earth

Jupiter

A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change. The temperatures are expected to change by as much as 10 Fahrenheit degrees at different places of the globe. At least close to the new spot and to the equator, nothing less than global warming is expected.

Neptune

The climate of Neptune - more precisely its reflectivity - was recently changing. Lockwood and Hammel argue in Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34 (2007) that the trends on Neptune reveal suggestive correlations of brightness of Neptune with the temperature trends on Earth, indicating their common solar origin - although I am not quite sure whether the sign is as expected.

Triton

Triton is Neptune's largest Moon. Some people believe that it used to be an asteroid. Global warming was detected on Triton. Between 1989 and 1998, the temperature jumped by 5 percent on the absolute (Kelvin) scale. The same relative increase would raise the Earth's temperature by 22 degrees Fahrenheit in 9 years.

Enceladus

Another moon of Saturn's, Enceladus, would be also expected to be frozen and cold. Suddenly, Cassini has informed us that Enceladus generates its own heat. Its high temperatures seem to be incompatible with calculations based on solar energy itself, according to existing models.

Saturn

Saturn itself has a rather warm southern pole, and the temperatures in that region suddenly jumped by 3-5 Kelvin degrees. Well, it's warm because it's been exposed to sunshine for quite some time but the magnitude of the temperature jumps is not trivial to calculate.

Pluto

What's going on with Pluto? Well, yes, your guess is right. There is global warming on Pluto. Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled in 14 years, and the associated increase of temperature is estimated to be around 3.5 Fahrenheit degrees, despite the motion of Pluto away from the Sun.

Mars

Of course, the global warming on Mars is a well-known story. Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius degrees, much faster than Earth: see Nature 2007. The warming has been used by this blog to discover the Martians. More seriously, we have explained that the dramatic and speedy melting of the Martian icecaps is caused by the greenhouse effect. 95% of "their" atmosphere is made of carbon dioxide; that's slightly more than 0.038% of our atmosphere.

The warming trend on Mars is undeniable. Some people have tried to blame the global warming on NASA's rovers. Such accusations are pretty serious because NASA is already preparing plans to occupy Mars using the greenhouse effect, as ordered by George Bush.

Venus

This planet doesn't belong to this list of planets where recent warming has been demonstrated. But it is interesting to talk about the greenhouse effect there.

Venus, our planet's evil sister, has already been identified as unusable for life because of ... yes, because of the greenhouse effect that occured in the past. Last month, the Venus express gave us some new hints why Venus has such a thick atmosphere that generated global warming.

Venus' distance from the Sun is about 70% of the distance Sun-Earth. Because of the second power, this means that there is twice as much solar radiation per area over there. Because of the fourth power in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, it means that you expect about 20% higher temperatures in comparison with Earth on the Kelvin scale which would mean, if Venus were a black body, that the temperature would still be still below 100 Celsius. But they are about 470 Celsius on Venus.

Venus is clearly not a black body and the greenhouse effect is important for raising its temperature. But you should notice that Venus' atmosphere has 90 times higher pressure than the terrestrial atmosphere and 96% of it is carbon dioxide! The Earth only has 380 parts per million of CO2, and if you divided it by 90 to get the corresponding fraction of the Venus atmosphere, you get about 4 parts per million. There is more than 100,000 times less CO2 density here than on Venus! If you used a linear relationship between the CO2 concentration and temperature boost, you would see that the expected increase of the Earth temperature due to CO2 is 400 Celsius divided by more than 100,000 which is a few millikelvins - a totally negligible amount! The actual strength of the greenhouse effect on Earth will be stronger - because the first molecules matter more - but it won't be exceedingly stronger. At any rate, when numbers are taken into account, you shouldn't expect any substantial influence of CO2 on Earth.

But let us return to the planets that are known to be currently warming.
Earth

The Earth is currently experiencing warming, too, although a less dramatic one than the previous examples. However, there is apparently a huge difference. The warming on the previous planets and moons was natural. On the other hand, the warming on Earth couldn't evolve naturally: it is caused by the humankind, evil corporations, and their intelligent design, most left-wing scientists believe. The warming trends can't have anything to do with the Sun whose activity is now highest in the last 1000 years: it is unethical to propose that the Sun plays any role, consensus scientists argue.

A comparison

You may ask the consensus scientists: why is there such a difference between the explanations for the warming of the Earth and the other planets and their moons? It's because the Earth is the center of the Universe, they would answer. You could also ask: why do all these planets and moons indicate warming? Shut up, the consensus scientists would answer.

Some of them would tell you that your paradox is resolved by the anthropic principle: the people on Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Mars, Triton, and other celestial bodies cannot complain about the anthropogenic global warming because... because these people don't exist!

The debate is over, Al Gore, our prophet, has announced. Terrestrial global warming, caused by the human sins, is no longer a political issue: it is now a spiritual issue. Now it's time to punish the heretics who deny that the Earth as the center of the Universe is special because of the humans who were created to the image of God - and because of their sins and SUVs.

[JJ McGuire]

Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET - May 15,
2007
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists
Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now
Skeptics
Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP
article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine
the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many
former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed
themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling
of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President
Al Gore, the United Nations and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global
warming.
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling
of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be
forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website,
as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the
media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the
partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and
universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve
as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See
Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )
The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows
less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of
the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are
increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptic. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article:
U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )
Once Believers, Now Skeptics – ( Link to web version
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... ntentRecor
d_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id= )
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous
scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the
United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one
of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of
being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by
mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a
September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in
Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest
environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful
battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.”
Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers”
mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's
role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and
preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and
U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global
warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who
signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in
which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of
man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was
once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto
house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel
wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small
changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel
reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic that he
recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of
Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s
conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global
warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are
not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start
somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the
Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be
cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years."
Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted
that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of
funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be
changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists,
recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many
others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming.
But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more
complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated
by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2,
2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is
only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of
the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not
exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere.
According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the
atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we
halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase
relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global
temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv
also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a
large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He
wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to
change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made
global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is
common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary
climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working
there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW
(Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the
Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six
years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate
carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the
evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but
since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause.
I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence
for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century,
more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low
clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change
my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from manmade
climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the
scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon
emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot
of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job
that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming.
And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of
such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we
felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to
save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence
outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the
central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The
new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in
atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece
of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past
warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added.
“Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of
global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more
entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the
moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global
warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans
bio link )
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries
and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate
change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started
working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other
side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a
position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty
was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of
Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the
mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly
not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former
lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife,
recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global
warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday
Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is
wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.”
“The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models
which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming
did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their
association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations
came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported
Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save
Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he
tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also
converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted
that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the
atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global
warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although
it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of
significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may
be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One
could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I
believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for
Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental
problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved
health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de
Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal
of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant
[scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of
which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of
Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s
( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s
1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global
warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling"
man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of
Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently
cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any
difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate
was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All
this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It
has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re
coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the
air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling
carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to
mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors,
such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past
century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of
anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to
ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a
scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made
global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.
Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming
believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of
prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn coauthored
the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with
chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal
Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April
6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper
which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by
activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the
cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to
natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
natural ‘noise.’”
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from
believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2
was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson
said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleocommercial
fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to
climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in
from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained.
“Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results
began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity
records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time,
[geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how
solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his
conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where
the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that
more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific
meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate
change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall
and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson
told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is
responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the
media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist
David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other
and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific
meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a
Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I
think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is)
we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the
atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not.
The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in
Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the
form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current
predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I
believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of
industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this
pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made
warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience
with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of
ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers
on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC
summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March
16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our
Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global
warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics
and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the
atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these wellknown
direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck
(Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and
not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel
Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry,
biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for
rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic
climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,”
Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of
industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited
anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same
fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar
activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists
who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister
Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly
understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been
made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern
about increasing greenhouse gases."
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences
at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further
examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate
disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century
was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple.
Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said
in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being
Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to
look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of
humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes
such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the
Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also
have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of
Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate
history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April
30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate
catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray
connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did
the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on
geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical
observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization
of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record
strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added.
Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value
of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my
belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the
only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional
energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both
nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive
water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor
is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into
the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed
energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate)
would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is
coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it
can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy
input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.
More to follow…
Related Links:
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming
Believers in Heated NYC Debate
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven
"Consensus’
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says
Sun Biggest Factor in Warming
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar
Activity, Scientists Say
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95%
of Weathermen Skeptical
MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to
‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"
Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S.
Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made
Global Warming Hype'
The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for
Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global
Warming"
# # #

[bulldog29]

Global warming?.....it wasnt that long ago they were saying we were going to freeze to death in the "coming ice age". Its all just a scam, with Al Gore as its salesman and scientists that take it as fact on faith. God forbid another scientist asks some critical questions, they are immediately branded as an oil corporation hack, with the media doing their part to help railroad them. Guess when they can't answer they have to deflect the attention off themselves. Kind of sounds like my kids when I am asking them why they decided to do something stupid.

[mudsucker]

Welcome to the site Bulldog29. You got it right for being a newbie and all!

[teul2]

Dear god, some one lock this thread!!!
I am just tired of seeing it every time I read this forum.

[Shallow Grave]

Dear god, some one lock this thread!!!
I am just tired of seeing it every time I read this forum.

better get back to work....u might have time to call someone back...lol

[mudsucker]

Dear god, some one lock this thread!!!
I am just tired of seeing it every time I read this forum.

better get back to work....u might have time to call someone back...lol

Viking ain't loosing any money cause of Joel!

[Shallow Grave]

Dear god, some one lock this thread!!!
I am just tired of seeing it every time I read this forum.

better get back to work....u might have time to call someone back...lol

Viking ain't loosing any money cause of Joel!

he's quite the busy man as of late...happy b-day mud...

[littlesmacko89]

Dear god, some one lock this thread!!!
I am just tired of seeing it every time I read this forum.

u and me both

people dont have that much to do at work do they.......its 47 pages long and probably counting

[woundedduck]

i say delete the s.o.b. at 10,000