Over 650 Scientists Dissent Global Warming Claim

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

the iron horse

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
3,266
Location
in a glass of CheerWine
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and 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 and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')


entire article:
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
 
I hope these scientists are all serious scientists, because the last list of climate change dissenters I saw had Gerri Halliwell PhD on it. :lol:

Anyway iron horse, which of the arguments mentioned by these scientists do you find most compelling? Do tell! :hyper:
 
So half of the warming is due to the sun, is the other half the pixies?
 
So no good arguments from any of yiz, just snippy jokes and high school slaggings.

I thought the global warming lobby were the rationals in this? :hmm:
 
In other news, the entire Middle East denies the Holocaust ever took place and Michael Jackson reiterates that "the kid is not his son".

Wow. When global warming sceptics claimed the other side were comparing them to holocaust deniers, I thought the former were exaggerating, but apparently not.
 
Yeah, the last list of "scientists" ended up being a complete hoax, I wouldn't be suprised if this one turns out very similar.

I'd be interested to see where the deniers stand, does global warming exist at all, or are you just denying that humanity could have taken part in any way?
 
You know the stick is too far up your ass when you read my sentence and you choose not to comment on the Michael Jackson reference.


Dalton,
Can we keep this discussion civil?

I'm skeptical about the dire threats that the earth is warming up to ultimate extinction.

Is being a skeptic now a sin?

Why not post some facts that will convince me and others that global warming is true?


Thank you :)
 
Dalton,
Can we keep this discussion civil?

I'm skeptical about the dire threats that the earth is warming up to ultimate extinction.

Is being a skeptic now a sin?

Why not post some facts that will convince me and others that global warming is true?


Thank you :)


We're too close for facts. I'm switching to mocking.

topgun2.jpg
 
Why not post some facts that will convince me and others that global warming is true?

Let me ask you iron horse, I'm assuming you've read facts from all sides correct? And there are many many many more scientist that believe global warming is occuring, and out of those most agree that humanity has a part in that warming. So what facts will you need to make you question your view? Have you found the facts of the minority to be that much more convincing or is it dissent for dissent sake?
 
What facts are inconvenient?
I'm seeking the truth on this subject, not propaganda.

So let me ask again...


Let me ask you iron horse, I'm assuming you've read facts from all sides correct? And there are many many many more scientist that believe global warming is occuring, and out of those most agree that humanity has a part in that warming. So what facts will you need to make you question your view? Have you found the facts of the minority to be that much more convincing or is it dissent for dissent sake?
 
What annoys me in all this is, even if the global warming data is a bit screwed and its not as bad as they say it is, are the ideas put forth, you know like not driving so much, limiting time on electrical appliances, riding a bike to places, recyclling rubbish and so on, such BAD things anyway? I just don't get this whole 'lets try and prove em wrong about global warming!!' who the fuck cares? Why can't we just step back, and realise how much we've screwed up the earth, regardless of how much damage it will cause in our lifetime. So many people are caught up with the now but you know what, we all die and you can't take your big wads of cash from you oil/ships/cars/military weapons/insurance/pharmaceutical company that you run you big fucking fool.
 
Recycling can be a bad idea, it can put more carbon in the atmosphere than just dumping into landfill, or can waste money which could have a greater impact elsewhere (for instance a subsidy on CFL bulbs for every household, instead of half a dozen different bins).

Cost-Benefit is not evil, and you shouldn't leave your critical thinking at the door when somebody says there is a crisis.
 
Climatology:
In contrast to meteorology, which focuses on short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency and trends of those systems. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions. Climatologists, those who practice climatology, study both the nature of climates - local, regional or global - and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change.

It's interesting to look at the list of quotes and see just how few come from the discipline of climate change: climatology. Of course other fields relate to it, but you would imagine if there was a significant conflict that the media was silencing, the quote compiler wouldn't even need to stretch into other fields for opinions: there surely should be more then enough climatologists to quote. That's the whole point, right? :lol: Which isn't to dismiss the broad consensus:

Link
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 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.

I particularly enjoy the brief bit about how there are more people quoted in this Senate Minority Report then helped compile the IPCC report: no shit- they're authors. If I can find three people to dispute the germ theory of disease, does that mean my Biology book (2 authors!) is obsolete? :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom