The natural cycles of the planet raise and lower the climates temperature much more then CO2's emissions. Even the UN scientists have come to this conclusion. Using scare mongering for profit like Al Gore and so many other "green" companies undermines those who believe in true conservation and being stewards of the land.
he CFL bulbs throwing Mercury into the landfill is just one of the stupid green practices. "We have to DO somthing!" is very different from doing something that makes sense.
What follows are some of the 650 noted scientists who spoke out against the "Debate is over" Man-made global warming myth. After that is a link to the PDF for the Senate Minority report:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera
“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
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress
“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
“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
“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
“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
U. S. Senate Minority Report
6 comments:
I just listened to a bloviator explaining why the earth has been cooling since 1998. Weather patterns. He came right out and claimed, "If things get warmer, it's due to burning fossil fuels. If things get cooler, it's due to weather conditions"....We will be the laughing stock of future generations...A few of us will try to claim "Ah---I never really believed the global warming stuff" but they will be incredulous.
Lee, try Science Daily. Although the earth has warmed and cooled for thousands of years, Global Warming is a fact.
I think we can trust NASA and its Feature Articles.
AP: Over 2T tons of ice melted in arctic since '03"
You can also read the NOAA's Paleoclimatology (U.S. Gov.)
Also, check out The Union of Concerned Scientists
Saying there's no Global Warming is akin to saying the earth is 6,000 years old. If the scientists can't agree, I think it prudent to proceed with caution.
I respect that you don't disagree with recycling and eco-friendly actions. But that big old hole in the ozone layer isn't fiction, and our waste is directly responsible.
I get the feeling we'll be on this subject for a while... ;-)
The Definition of "Global Warming" in this blog is "Man made global warming"
Yes, and I did not misunderstand. Human-Made Global Warming exists. There are articles about our fingerprints corroding the environment in each of these links.
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and land clearing has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up the surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.
“Without human influence on climate change we would be more than 50 times less likely of seeing a year as warm as 2008.” Please refer to the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index from the Goddard Institute.
The possibility that humans did not contribute at all to the environment does not seem logical to me.
Stella---For the sake of arguement, if I could PROVE to you there is no global warming, and warm years were caused by solar activity, and the effects of industrialization based pollution were only a local issue, not global----would you be
1) Relieved to find out the earth is doing fine and will be around supporting peole for thousands of years to come, -OR-
2)bummed you didn't have a good reason to be anti-corporation?
I talked to an astronomy buddy that works for NOAA, and I consider him an expert on atmospheric science. His take is global temperature fluctuations are caused by varying solar output. Explains why Mars' polar ice caps grow and recede at an identical rate as our own, and they match a 'solar pulse'. (I'm not going to pretend to understand what he was talking about there) If he thinks this is all anti-corporation hype, I believe him. (BTW--they've never NOT seen a hole in the ozone layer. First time they looked it was there)
Flyingvan, I would (1) be completely relieved, maybe deliriously happy, to know the earth is doing well and the animals and people will be around for thousands of years; and (2) not at all bummed if I didn't have a good reason to be anti-corporation due to the environment (but I am for other reasons)...
I took two terms of astronomy: so I think I get what your buddy's talking about. You can see research on the solar pulse from Stanford where my friend is a professor. I should ask him about this phenomenon. The commonality between Mars' polar ice caps and, technically, ours is an interesting point. The solar pulse discovery is cutting edge science.
I do believe we are dealing with global warming, made by humans. However, if scientists can't agree, how can we be sure what's going on? I wouldn't rely on the word of one scientist, even given one with such excellent credentials or working for the NOAA, and with no offense meant to your friend. There needs to be a large consensus. Either side could be right: or is there an answer somewhere in between?
The EPA has an interesting article. I also found this image that demonstrates an increasing ozone hole. However, is the shrinking and expanding of the ozone layer a normal atmospheric occurrence? That's a good question.
Flyingvan, thanks much (I mean it) for your comment. Lots to think about. You, Lee, Shoo, and I may not agree, but this is certainly a great thread. Besides, too much agreement gets boring.
Thanks Lee for starting this post. Great stuff.
Post a Comment