U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

reply to post by TheAvenger
also.. avenger... what part of their studies (specifically) do you disagree with? to me the ice core studies ( both in the artic and anartic) are pretty convincing.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

merry christmas to you, avenger, and i appreciate the fact that you have kept this discussion civil, even when i, in my previous posts to you, seemed to be mocking you. i apoligize for that. my question is...what do you think the motivation is for so many dedicated climate sceintists to come out publicly and forceably in regards to global warming?. peer review is the "bread and butter" of any competant scientist. and the serious ones know that what they say or write about can be detrimental to their crediblity and future career opportunities. so... why would they go to the trouble of making these claims?.

What you will generally find is that only senior scientists very well secure in their positions, or retired scientists dare to go against the pro global warming dogma.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

also.. avenger... what part of their studies (specifically) do you disagree with? to me the ice core studies ( both in the artic and anartic) are pretty convincing.

You can get opinions on both sides of most research. Many, including Richard Lindzen say the ice core data is flawed. This thread deals with whether or not their is a consensus of scientists who believe that man is the predominant cause of global warming, so my opinions as to why I don't agree with anthropogenic global warming doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things. I have written a very long post previously explaining my thoughts. I will attempt to find a link for you then edit it in here.

Have a wonderful Christmas.


Edit:

Here's the thread I promised you. I have grown tired of debating global warming here on ATS, but occasionally I post, like this thread to remind myself of the futility of trying to convince people who will not listen.

Above Top secret


Above Top Secret






[edit on 12/25/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Richard Courtney was an expert peer reviewer for the I.P.C.C. regardless of what anyone thinks of him.

What do you think this entails?

Did you know that you could be an 'expert reviewer' if you wanted to? All you have to do is sign up. It requires no real expertise, it is self-appointed. Indeed, we have Courtney who has no real expertise in climate science and a DipPhil in material science, along with the chemist, Vincent Gray, providing 'peer review', heh.

All they do is review the early manuscripts and make comments, which can be accepted or rejected. Apparently Vincent Gray likes to make numerous stupid insights. It isn't any great title worthy of respect.

Mr. Courtney besides being a scientist is a Methodist minister. He makes no claims about his credentials, though there may have been incorrect assumptions made by others when writing about or quoting him. In U.S. terms, I would say that he has the equivalent of a Master's degree.

Great, so we are agreed he has no PhD. Now we can apply the same to McLean, he also appears to have no PhD, therefore more possble PhDs pulled out of Xmas crackers.

And these are meant to be 'prominent' scientists, heh. This is the point, the 400 is massively overegged with people who are either not scientists at all, or are well outside the bounds of their expertise. If we cull it until we have people of real substance, we would probably have maybe 10% of that number.

You state that you think consensus is of no importance, that the scientific literature is the key.

Nope, you must be misinterpreting me. I don't think that a consensus requires 100% agreement. Moreover, I think it is best assessed in the scientific literature, rather than by taking the opinion of random people like Alan Titchmarsh and self-appointed 'experts' like Richard Courtney.

Even Peiser states that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept that humans have had a significant impact on climate. Moreover, even people on the 400 list do. And in the same way that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution, we can accept there is a consensus. But, again, I don't think this is the best way to assess it.

On that note, Merry Christmas my friend. May the New Year be good to you as well.

And you to

[edit on 25-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

so, avenger ... you have no concerns about the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the melting of the artic ice because both of

those have nothing to do with the impact of the human population. then you must be against pollution controls already inacted...therefore i think you should set a good example...i propose that you should move you and your entire family right next to a refinery...of course one that does have the least amount of pollution

Have you even read what these scientists are saying, or are you afflicted by the Al Gore global warming religion?

Oddly enough, I was raised for my first 18 years of life less than one mile from an oil refinery. Rising CO2 I have no fear of, the arctic ice melting is controversial. I have spoken here on ATS many times supporting conservation, improved efficiency and reduced pollution. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. I am in the business of environmental remediation, so I assure you I have done more about pollution than most.

Again, I do not think you have read the full report linked here.

[edit on 12/24/2007 by TheAvenger]

you are absolutely right. Nations are NOT looking forward to a Northwest Passage which is only possible with a melting arctic. Total lies! Likewise there is no rush to claim the arctic seabed with all its oil and mineral resources (russias flag) which is only viable if there is no ice. A figment of our imagination that russian flag.

US Senate......nuff said. The US is a nation alone in the world with its anti GW stance.

How long do we have to put up with the head in the fricking sand attitude by the US. I'm slowly deciding that you in the US deserve to burn, boil, drown with the consequences of your own disgusting stance. After all the rest of world is already starting to suffer hence why the US was TOTALLY isolated at the recent conference......HELLO ISOLATED, what the hell does it take. Of course any worldwide changes have nothing to do with the US....it's down to martian warming......for f'''s sake!!!! The US is perfect.

I say it again : the whole world recognises GW, you don't...for god's sake WAKE UP.

Insane people believe its not they that are mad but the rest of the world.........................hmmmmmmmm. Sounds familiar.

regards,
malc now mar39241

Thanks, Gottago....I agree 100%

No way that God would allow us little "ants" to destroy his wonderful creation, EARTH.

If we're warming, it's natural. Nature has a way of taking care of herself.

Mankind couldn't affect weather change on a global scale if we tried.

( I am not discounting HAARP can affect local weather....)

Happy New Year- now I 'gottago', too....

mar54321- blastoff....to Mars, if you prefer.

Then come back and blame THEIR warming on CO2 levels, or PAM, or aerosol, or whatever you liberal sheeple can blame it on next.

And as far as your anti-American hatred. You jealous foreigners who are so envious of us here is the USofA just can't stand that WE'RE the superpower, and you're a molecule in OUR UNIVERSE !

America bails out EVERYONE else when there's a natural disaster, and what thanks do we get for THAT? More bashing from the likes of Mar.

Mankind can not warm the planet, Mar....think for yourself and quit following those left wing blogs that spew junk information.

Do the research, and you'll see why this issue will be put to bed in the next 5 years, as was the ICE AGE hoax.

Originally posted by mar39241
US Senate......nuff said.

More a case of Inhofe's office....nuff said.

This is the guy who decided that Michael Crichton would be an ideal individual to provide an insight into climate science. I think he had the GOP memo stating he needed scientific experts, but misread and acquired a sci-fi expert.

Originally posted by melatonin


More a case of Inhofe's office....nuff said.

This is the guy who decided that Michael Crichton would be an ideal individual to provide an insight into climate science. I think he had the GOP memo stating he needed scientific experts, but misread and acquired a sci-fi expert.

I like Michael Crichton. He is a Harvard trained medical doctor who found he liked writing better than being a physician. Since he has studied science, his opinions are worth listening to. An expert on climate science, of course he's not. A great writer, yes he is. Inhofe is a good Senator for my state, but he's a politician, not a scientist. The fact that he champions anti-global warming makes you warmies hate him, but lots of people hate politicians for lots of reasons.

Here is a Michael Crichton quote:"In my view, our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized—red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth." Makes a lot of sense to a thinking man.

Crichton believes global warming will raise Earth's temperature about 0.8 degrees C, so he believes more like you than I.







[edit on 12/25/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by LiamStemrad
Thanks, Gottago....I agree 100%

No way that God would allow us little "ants" to destroy his wonderful creation, EARTH.

If we're warming, it's natural. Nature has a way of taking care of herself.

Mankind couldn't affect weather change on a global scale if we tried.

( I am not discounting HAARP can affect local weather....)

Happy New Year- now I 'gottago', too....

ATS in a nutshell. Doesn't believe in what enormously powerful and conclusive physical observations, theory and experiments show about the climate, but does believe that an odd ionospheric experiment is some conspiratorial weather-modification (other than ionospheric "weather") program.

I thought we're supposed to deny ignorance here?

Try to read and understand www.realclimate.org first.

And yes, I am a PhD physicist who does "believe" ---wrong word--- agree with the truly overwhelmingly scientifically supported consensus about the role of human-emitted or human-influenced greenhouse gases. I am not brainwashed. I do understand physics and I can read and understand a fair amount of the primary literature, though I am not a working climatologist who contributes to new discoveries there. My impression was that the evidence is far greater than any layman really understands and that the community has very seriously investigated an enormous range of theoretical explanations for all sorts of problems and subproblems, as well as intensively studying and checking the quality of the diverse data sets used to support the current consensus.

If you want to know what actual working scientists think about this, go to the American Geophysical Union meeting. Ask what physical oceanographers at Woods Hole, Scripps and dozens of other universities and institutes worldwide think, and why.

It's about as strong as the "belief" among chemists that molecules are made out of atoms in the periodic table.

Originally posted by mbkennel



ATS in a nutshell. Doesn't believe in what enormously powerful and conclusive physical observations, theory and experiments show about the climate, but does believe that an odd ionospheric experiment is some conspiratorial weather-modification (other than ionospheric "weather") program.

I thought we're supposed to deny ignorance here?

Try to read and understand www.realclimate.org first.

I am really surprised that a Ph.D physicist would recommend that people go to real climate, which is an environmental activist site. If I had sent people to certain anti-global warming sites they would be screaming farce, farce. Politics needs to be removed from the science of climate change.

This is a conspiracy site, but you believers who mistrust your government to tell you the truth about UFOs and little green men, 911 and God knows what, just drink the Koolaid on global warming. Deny ignorance indeed.





[edit on 12/25/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I like Michael Crichton. He is a Harvard trained medical doctor who found he liked writing better than being a physician. Since he has studied science, his opinions are worth listening to. An expert on climate science, of course he's not. A great writer, yes he is. Inhofe is a good Senator for my state, but he's a politician, not a scientist. The fact that he champions anti-global warming makes you warmies hate him, but lots of people hate politicians for lots of reasons.

Both Inhofe and Crichton are good at misrepresenting the science. I don't think a non-practicing MD is someone worth listening to any great extent on this issue, no more than you or I. Similarly, I wouldn't rate Michael Mann's opinion on the best treatment for a particular type of cancer as being of great worth.

I don't really hate Inhofe, I don't know him enough to have such a strong feeling towards him. Indeed, I tend to find his comments laughable.

I also think Crichton's writing is a bit naff, all a bit subjective though.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by jimmyx
..right next to there house..you know...where their own kids can play in the back yard and if they did that...you might have a leg to stand on. of course, all the wealthy people that run these plants and wealthy investors that profit off of them live right next to them too!!! please give me a break...when I see that...where they are as unconcerned for their own life as well as their families by living next to these...then you might have an argument

JimmyX...I think your missing the point here.
NOBODY is saying that many forms of power and heat we have in use is causing POLLUTION...which of course they in fact are.
What is being said here is that the pollution is not causing GLOBAL WARMING.....there is truly no REAL science backing the idea that polluted air is warmer air, or that polluted water is warmer water.
It is just dirty..............not warmer.
I agree that no people should be living next to a pollution causing power plant, and I also think there should be NO POLLUTION........I think we are advanced enough societyto figure out how to get the power we need with much less pollution, if not none at all. I am all for clean burning fuels.

You go off on a rant about living next to pollution causing power sources with some haughty attitude but your TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT of the thread, which is:
IS the climate change we are experiencing being caused by us, or is it a natural cycle? The more I read about past climate fluctuation the more inclined I am to think it is a NATURAL cycle......and not caused by human pollution.
Who knows what that scary arssed HAARP array can do......and are there not 2 HAARP arrays now? the one up in Alaska and one on the opposite side of the planet???
No where to run no where to hide from THAT creepy construction.....

[edit on 25-12-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

reply to post by Terrylynn


Great pic Terrylynn!

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess

Originally posted by jimmyx
..right next to there house..you know...where their own kids can play in the back yard and if they did that...you might have a leg to stand on. of course, all the wealthy people that run these plants and wealthy investors that profit off of them live right next to them too!!! please give me a break...when I see that...where they are as unconcerned for their own life as well as their families by living next to these...then you might have an argument

JimmyX...I think your missing the point here.
NOBODY is saying that many forms of power and heat we have in use is causing POLLUTION...which of course they in fact are.


What is being said here is that the pollution is not causing GLOBAL WARMING.....there is truly no REAL science backing the idea that polluted air is warmer air, or that polluted water is warmer water.
It is just dirty..............not warmer.

The temperature of the gases emitted from the smokestacks is irrelevant.
What matters is the change to the radiation balance of the Earth, due to emission of greenhouse gases.

I don't understand why people think this is only a speculation or a theory.

There is direct observational physical evidence measuring exactly this, showing the greenhouse effect has been increased because of the changes of the composition of the atmosphere. Not a theoretical concern. Direct experimental observations. Predictions made, from scientific analysis and knowledge of laws of physics, made decades ahead of time.

The greenhouse effect of course was naturally occurring before humans (without it, Earth would be a spherical glacier), we are adding to it.

And there is direct physical evidence that change in composition is in recent years primarily due to humans.

I agree that no people should be living next to a pollution causing power plant, and I also think there should be NO POLLUTION........I think we are advanced enough societyto figure out how to get the power we need with much less pollution, if not none at all. I am all for clean burning fuels.

You go off on a rant about living next to pollution causing power sources with some haughty attitude but your TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT of the thread, which is:
IS the climate change we are experiencing being caused by us, or is it a natural cycle? The more I read about past climate fluctuation the more inclined I am to think it is a NATURAL cycle......and not caused by human pollution.

Why? What other physical explanation is there?

This is what professional climatologists have been looking at for literally decades. Just calling something a "natural cycle" doesn't get you off the hook for explaining what that "natural cycle" is, and what the evidence supporting it. That's what science is about: theory, physical consistency, and above all, experimental and observational evidence.

Otherwise it's just magical mumbo-jumbo, might as well blame Mithra's farts.

Of course, regionally there are all sorts of *local* climate changes due (largely) to changes in ocean circulation, but because of physical conservation laws (energy balance, etc) funnily enough they tended to cancel out. There was significant northern-hemispherical cooling in the mid 20th century due to human-emitted aerosols (lower atmospheric soot), and this is well understood as well, but it is decreasing and the effect from greenhouse gases (which builds up and stays around much longer) is now overtaking that.

I will sum up: there is no physical explanation for most of the current observations other than rapid change of greenhouse gases due to humans. Everything has been looked at. No it's definitely not the Sun's output. It's not volcanoes. However, there is quite strong evidence that previous climate changes in geophysical time have strong, and causative correlations with increased and decreased greenhouse forcing, combined with other issues.

Who knows what that scary arssed HAARP array can do......and are there not 2 HAARP arrays now? the one up in Alaska and one on the opposite side of the planet???

No where to run no where to hide from THAT creepy construction.....

[edit on 25-12-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

I'd easily trade risk of 1000 HAARPs for nonlinear climate attractor flipping.

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to what is at its core obvious. It is simply impossible by the laws of physics for the climate NOT to change if we change the radiation balance, and we have.

I am really surprised that a Ph.D physicist would recommend that people go to real climate, which is an environmental activist site. If I had sent people to certain anti-global warming sites they would be screaming farce, farce. Politics needs to be removed from the science of climate change.

I recommend RealClimate.org because it is what it say it is. Climate science from climate scientists. Read the darn blog, most of it is about actual science.

I don't see any "activism" other than denying scientific ignorance, using scientific arguments. Where are they asking for donations or "activism"?

Of course they get pissed and snippy at those who misuse science or just plain lie.

Sometimes there really isn't two equally valid sides to an argument, especially in science.

This is a conspiracy site, but you believers who mistrust your government to tell you the truth about UFOs and little green men, 911 and God knows what, just drink the Koolaid on global warming. Deny ignorance indeed.

This is a Deny Ignorance site, foremost.

I definitely do not trust my government on global warming. (the government is not uniform by any means either).

I trust the scientists that I personally know who work on this problem all over the world. Unlike supposed ET bodies kept by a secret government, the Earth is open to all to take observations, and people have done just that.

Remember, that this global warming hypothesis came way way back (easily 1950's) before there was conclusive evidence, and from people who had no possible reason to "make something up" , and for what reason?

Among many, it came from straight-arrow Navy-funded oceanographers and NASA types.

No motivation to lie, and lying would be impossible either. And yes, they'd certainly all have jobs without global warming as well.

Yeah,yeah...someday, someday...hey someday millions of years from now Newyork could be in the arctic..the nwo.and the illuminati will get us..an astroid will get us..a killer comet..a super bug..aliens may destroy us..elchupacabra,bigfoot may eat us all..china might make us all eat rice all day long..the economy might collapse...super volcanos!..black holes may devour us..gamma ray bursts may fry us..giant tsunamis will drown us..we may nuke ourselves to death...we may starve..hords of rabid nano bots will melt our flesh to kingdom come..killer cyborgs..killer a.i. machines..robots...time bandits...the matrix has us..paris hilton!!!..cholesterol!!..obeseity...the whopper..the big mac..the dark..shadow people..ghosts...(beer is good)...but global warming is the one that is going to do us in for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!yep..thats the one.
i know i know i left a bunch of things out.


[edit on 25-12-2007 by Damncaptain]

When someone raises the topic of global warming or peak oil I cringe. The same BS is regurgitated to support both and ignorant comments are made by people who refuse to look into BOTH sides of the issues. So before I inflame the issues I'd like to ask the supporters of global warming... What do YOU do about the issues. Let me clarify. What do you do to reduce YOUR footprint regarding both issues. To help you with some ides this is what I do personally.

*Sell your car and use public transport. Yes it is a pain in the butt. Over two years and counting for me.
*Hand wash your clothes in cold water.
*Don't buy stuff and if you need things ( as we all do ) buy items, that can be re-used, re-covered or just last a life time in general.
*Don't use air conditioning. 41 degrees C here today, I've wet my t-shirt ( and no i am not a chick sorry guys ) I'm cool and I've saved money on electricity.
*Eat less. Walk more. Walk to the shop to buy your food, that way you can only eat what you can carry, you'll eat less, lose weight and get exercise.

I could go on but what I am trying to show that is I do not like hypocritical people waxing on about a subject but not being willing to make small sacrifices that do some good to our environment. I hate pollution, I hate my asthma and I don't want my kids being left with a world that is full of harmful chemicals, but here is the kicker. I do not believe Peak Oil or Global Warming as they are commonly accepted are real.

Instead of going down the normal path of stating the obvious like the earths temp goes up about 800 years before carbon levels rise I'll approach it on a different angle.

Who is promoting Man Made global warming. We can take one example the noble prize winner ( look up some info on the origins of the nobel prize for an inetresting read ) AL Gore. He is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations. Who fund the CFR ? Original funding was from Morgan, Rockefeller Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn and Paul Warburg ( amongst others ). Today they are funded by ... Xerox, GM, Texaco, Marshall fund, Ford Foundation, Mellon Foundation, Rockefeller brothers fund, Starr foundation etc....
So what you may ask... have a read of an article at Global Resaerch titled "seeds of destruction" and you will see what types of organisations these are. Even without knowing certain facts I would be hesitant to believe that anything being promoted by the CFR is for our benefit.

The oil companies help fund and organisation that promotes global warming as a man made event..... Strange how the oil companies own most of the patents on "green energy" sources. The man made Global Warming myth is being perpetuated by the same people who want to control the worlds food sources with GM foods. The same people who funded the Nazis and moved the Nazi scientists to America after the war. The same leaders and organisations that are heavily into the occult ( yes strange but true )

The gospel of Global Warming is preached by the same man who wrote papers for the CFR promoting the war in Iraq ( read them for yourself ) which we all know was based on lies, lies they all knew about.

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth !

Have a nice day

Originally posted by mbkennel
What matters is the change to the radiation balance of the Earth, due to emission of greenhouse gases.

There is direct observational physical evidence measuring exactly this, showing the greenhouse effect has been increased because of the changes of the composition of the atmosphere.

QFT

Nice posts, mb. Unlikely to make much headway, though, too much ideological resistance. Anything but CO2.

I've said this continually - Simple. Basic. Physics. Until they can show CO2 doesn't absorb longwave radiation and all the verified predictions don't exist, the song remains the same...

You do realize that the whole issue of Global Warming is moot in any case, since in 30 to 50 years there will be no fossil fuels to burn, so it will correct itself.
So why get all hot and bothered about a temporary situation?