Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007

0 views

Skip to first unread message

James

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 10:31:34 PM3/18/07

SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007

MIT Scientist Richard Lindzen and former UN IPCC reviewer, called fears of
man-made global warming 'silly' in January 2007 and equated concerns to
'little kids' attempting to "scare each other."

Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball recently called fears of man-made global
warming "the greatest deception in the history of science."

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears in
February 2007 - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical "You tell me you're going
to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that's 6
billion years old?" Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. "I'm not sure which is
more arrogant - to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it,"
Meteorologist Mark Nolan said.

60 prominent scientists wrote the Canadian Prime Minister in 2006 saying
that "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."

Meteorologist James Spann said in January that he does "not know of a single
TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype" and he
noted that "Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets
of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon."

Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allen said in February 2007, "All of this
(alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you
live your life."

Bernie Rayno, senior meteorologist with AccuWeather said in February 2007,
"Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough
evidence to link global warming to greenhouse gases."

India's Glaciologists and Geologists stepped forward to reject climate
alarmism in February 2007. They included VK Raina, a leading glaciologist in
India, RK Ganjoo, the director of the Regional Centre for Field Operations
and Research on Himalayan Glaciology and geologist MN Koul. "Claims of
global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong
assumptions," Raina told the Hindustan Times

Madhav Khandekar, a PhD meteorologist Canada's rejected the UN IPCC global
warming report. "I think the IPCC science is a bit too simplistic," said
Khandekar in February 2007. "IPCC scientists did not thoroughly analyze why
the Earth's surface temperature -- land and ocean combined -- has increased
only modestly in the past 30 years."

Paleoclimatologist Labels Climate Fears Oversimplified. Boston College's
professor of geology and geophysics Amy Frappier explained in February 2007,
"The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were
indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today." Frappier
noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not
consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead
stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. "At some
point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated,"
said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating."

Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be 'Excessively
exaggerated'
- Scientists L. Zhen-Shan, and S. Xian's 2007 noted that "Although the CO2
greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have
been excessively exaggerated." Their study concluded that "it is high time
to reconsider the trend of global climate change "looked at "multi-scale
analysis of global temperature changes" and concluded "that "global climate
will be cooling down in the next 20 years."
CLIMATE SCIENTISTS: IT'S THE SUN

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his
belief in manmade emissions driving climate change. "Like many others, I was
personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming,"
Shaviv said in January 2007. But Shaviv now points to growing peer reviewed
evidence that the sun has been driving the temperature changes and said,
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global
warming."

Climate scientist Henrik Svensmark released a report in February 2007 with
researchers at the Danish National Space Centre which shows that the planet
is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays
entering the atmosphere. "We have the highest solar activity we have had in
at least 1,000 years," Svensmark said.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research, Pulkovo Observatory, in
Russia said in January 2007. "It is no secret that increased solar
irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large
amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's
industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from
a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations," Abdussamatov said.

Climate Scientist Fred Singer & Environmental Economist Dennis Avery's 2006
book: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" details the
solar-climate link using studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows
the earth's temperatures following variations in solar intensity through
centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice
and tree rings."

Niger Calder, former editor of New Scientist, also expressed his view last
week that the UN rejects science it sees as "politically incorrect" and the
UN denies that "climate history and related archeology give solid support to
the solar hypothesis."
MARS HAS GLOBAL WARMING DESPITE ABSENCE OF SUVS

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says,"
according to a February 2007 article in National Geographic. The article
explained: "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo
Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars warming data is evidence
that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the
sun. 'The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and
Mars,' Abdussamatov said.'"

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! WHAT BEGAN WITH THE UN IN 1990 IS NOW A HOLLYWOOD
CRUSADE

THE UNITED NATIONS

French President Jacques Chirac: "Kyoto represents the first component of an
authentic global governance"

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom "Kyoto is about the economy,
about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide"
THE UNITED NATIONS EXPOSED

The Kyoto Protocol: All Cost, No Gain: Wharton Econometrics Forecasting
Associates estimates that Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700
annually, yet only reduce temperature by .06 Celsius. The 2005 rejected
McCain-Lieberman proposal would have cost American households an additional
$810 a year and more than 1 million jobs would have been lost. Electricity
prices would have increased 20 percent.

Largest Tax Increase Ever: Cap and trade proposals (similar to the Kyoto
Protocol) would mean the largest single tax increase in the history of
America According to a Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates study,
the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy at least $300 billion dollars
annually, ten times President Clinton's 1993 record tax increase which cost
$32 billion dollars.

MEDIA CITED CLIMATE 'EXPERTS' BLAME PRESIDENT BUSH FOR HURRICANES & WRONGLY
PREDICT 2006 SEASON

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blamed Hurricane Katrina on the Bush Administration's
failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. "As Hurricane Katrina dismantles
Mississippi's Gulf Coast, it's worth recalling the central role that
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol
and kiboshing President Bush's iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2."

Barbra Streisand predicted dire Hurricanes for 2006: "This summer's back to
back superstorms are proof positive we have entered a new period of global
warming emergency. We are in a global warming emergency state, and that
these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense. There could be
more droughts, dust bowls."

Liberal Environmental activist Ross Gelbspan: "The Hurricane that struck
Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service.
Its real name is global warming." August 30, 2005- Boston Globe

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio in October 2005: "We are the biggest contributor to
global warming in the entire world, and if we don't make a difference, we
don't change our ways, a lot of things will go terribly wrong. It is one of
the single most important issues facing the entire world."

GLOBAL WARMING = GREEN RELIGION?

Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell ridiculed the
"semi-religious" belief in global warming and compared fears to
"superstition" in February 2007. Cardinal Pell has also said, "In the past,
pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate
capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions."

Dr. Calvin Beisner, Spokesman for Interfaith Stewardship Alliance "It would
be morally unconscionable to force the world's developing countries to delay
their climb out of poverty by denying them, as would any serious cuts in CO2
emissions, the cheap, abundant energy available from carbon fuels."

JAMES LILEKS of Newhouse News Service wrote in March 2007, "If
environmentalism is the new religion, the Oscar ceremony [for Gore] was the
High Holy Mass."

Pennsylvania Priest Father J. Michael Venditti Mocked 'Carbon Offsets' By
Offering 'Moral Offsets' To Allow you to 'Sin with Confidence' in a March
2007 blog. "The size of your carbon footprint - and, according to global
warming's true believers, the blackness of your soul - is determined by how
many and how much of these evil things you do. But fear not. If you're rich
enough, you can buy your environmental soul clean again by purchasing carbon
offsets," Venditti wrote.

LIBERALS, MEDIA LATCH ON TO "LONE VOICE" TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER EVANGELICALS

Rev. Richard Cizik, a global warming alarmist, is frequently cited by the
media to show a "split" in the evangelical movement. However, a closer look
reveals Cizik is but a lone voice. A 2006 Vanity Fair Magazine article had
Cizik posing for a picture where he was walking on water. Cizik shares the
beliefs of liberals on the issue of population control.

HERE COMES AL GORE

Katie Couric called Gore a 'Secular Saint' and praised his efforts to raise
awareness and prompt action to combat global warming.

Oprah Winfrey has called former Vice President Al Gore the "Noah" of our
time.
BUT DO SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH COURIC & WINFREY?

MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen, in June 2006: "A general
characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that
the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without
any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad
enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse."

Geologist Robert Giegengack believes Gore's understanding of climate science
is so poor that he told his undergrad students at University of Pennsylvania
in February 2007: "Every single one of you knows more about [global warming]
than Al Gore."
MOMENTUM SHIFTING TO SKEPTICS

ONCE BELIEVERS, NOW SKEPITCS

Claude Allegre: A top geophysicist and French Socialist converted from
alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre now says the cause of climate change is
"unknown" and accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of
being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting
has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his
belief in manmade emissions driving global warming and now blames the Sun.

David Bellamy: Famed UK environmental campaigner David Bellamy recently
converted into a skeptic after reviewing the new science and now calls
global warming fears "poppycock."

Meteorologist Reid Bryson, who was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age
scare of the 1970's has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.
In February 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made
global warming fears.
POLITICAL LEADERS SPEAKING OUT

Czech President Vaclav Klaus told a Czech newspaper on February 8, 2007 that
fears of catastrophic man-made global warming were a "myth" and critiqued
the UN IPCC process, calling it a "political body." Klaus also said other
government leaders would speak out, but "political correctness strangles
their voice."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was recently reported to have once
referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a "socialist scheme" designed to suck
money out of rich countries.
Canadian Environmental Minister John Baird said meeting Kyoto's emissions
reduction targets in Canada would require an economic collapse similar to
Russia's post-Communist fall.

EVEN UN NOW BACKPEDALING FROM ALARMISM

Cow 'Emissions' More Damaging to Planet Than C02 From Cars (2006 UN Report,
Food and Agricultural Organization)

Sea level rise estimates cut in half in last 6 years (UN 2007 IPCC Report)

UN Downgraded Man's Climate Impact by 25% in last 6 years (UN 2007 IPCC
Report)

ALARMISTS GETTING DESPERATE

Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel recently called for decertifying
broadcast meteorologists who do not tow the line on global warming alarmism.
Cullen is also the star of a new politically charged global warming
documentary that, according to the film's website, accuses the U.S.
government of "criminal neglect" and blames "right-wing think tanks" for
helping to "defeat climate-friendly legislation."

Calls for 'Nuremberg-Style' trials for skeptics by some climate alarmists in
2006

Demonizing climate skeptics as 'Flat Earth Society' Members and much worse.
Alarmists threatening the job positions of State Climatologists in Oregon
and Delaware who hold skeptical views on climate change
GET THE FACTS

Go To Senator Inhofe's Committee website: www.epw.senate.gov/

Subscribe to Senator Inhofe YouTube Channel

Download Senate published 68 page color "Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global
Warming Alarmism"

New Competitive Enterprise Institute book: "Politically Incorrect Guide to
Global Warming" By Christopher Horner

Bypass Establishment Media - Seek out alternative news sources, blogs, talk
radio, Internet.

Exxon Liars & Thieves

unread,

Mar 18, 2007, 9:42:59 PM3/18/07

.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!

http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

> Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

> Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston,
> Mass.

> Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=82

> Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
> Cave Junction, Ore.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6

> Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences
> (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

> Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and
> associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
> Ottawa

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html

> Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada.
> Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

> Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University
> of Guelph, Ont.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/McKitrick_Fraud.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1008
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142

> Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg;
> environmental consultant

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1165

> Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and
> Sioux Lookout, Ont.

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1174
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=88
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

> Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept.
> of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute
> of Technology

> Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;
> Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of
> State Climatologists

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=912
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9

> Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,
> University of Virginia

> Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science
> Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

> Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
> Connecticut

http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=241
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25

Message has been deleted

James

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 12:08:20 AM3/19/07

"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:4QmLh.60$G34...@newsfe03.lga...
> James wrote:
>
>> MIT Scientist Richard Lindzen
>> Meteorologist James Spann
>> Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allen
>> MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen
>> Geologist Robert Giegengack
>> Claude Allegre
>> Astrophysicist Nir Shavivriving
>> David Bellamy
>> Meteorologist Reid Bryson
>> Czech President Vaclav Klaus Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Go To
>> Senator Inhofe's
>> Subscribe to Senator Inhofe
>> Senator Inhofe
>> Senator Inhofe
>
> Ah. Right. Got it. Thanks!

I think Wapner is on. You're an excellent driver kt.

Citizen Bob

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 10:14:13 AM3/19/07

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:31:34 -0500, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

>SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007

Don't forget Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace. He may not be a
scientist but he is certainly a Green.

Even the Greens know its all a big hoax.

http://tinyurl.com/2le9jn/

+++
A founding member of Greenpeace, who left the organization because he
viewed it as too radical, praised the United States for refusing to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

"At least the [United] States is honest. [The U.S.] said, 'No we are
not going to sign that thing (Kyoto) because we can't do that,'" said
Patrick Moore, who is attending the United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Montreal.

Moore noted that many of the industrialized nations that ratified the
treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions are now failing to comply
with those emission limits. Moore, who currently heads the
Canadian-based environmental advocacy group Greenspirit Strategies
helped found both Greenpeace in 1971 and Greenpeace International in
1979.

"Canada signed [Kyoto] and said, 'Oh yeah, we can do that,' and then
it merrily goes on its way to increase CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions
by even more than the U.S.," Moore told Cybercast News Service.
+++

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!

The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas

http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/dhmo.html

birdog

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 10:17:32 AM3/19/07

Hey James. The eco-nuts keep telling us that a "concensus" of scientists say
gw is causes by man. To me, this means they sat around a table and voted on
whose "science" was correct, then swore by it. Maybe it's time to take a new
vote???

Lloyd

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 10:31:40 AM3/19/07

On Mar 18, 10:31 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007
>
> MIT Scientist Richard Lindzen and former UN IPCC reviewer, called fears of
> man-made global warming 'silly' in January 2007 and equated concerns to
> 'little kids' attempting to "scare each other."
>
> Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball recently called fears of man-made global
> warming "the greatest deception in the history of science."
>

Like sampling Holocaust deniers to "prove" there is no consensus the
Holocaust occurred.

Lloyd

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 10:32:33 AM3/19/07

Maybe it's time you went back to school. You could get your GED.

rlei...@googlemail.com

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 10:50:12 AM3/19/07

On Mar 19, 2:31 am, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007
>
> MIT Scientist Richard Lindzen and former UN IPCC reviewer, called fears of
> man-made global warming 'silly' in January 2007 and equated concerns to
> 'little kids' attempting to "scare each other."
>
> Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball recently called fears of man-made global
> warming "the greatest deception in the history of science."
>
> Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears in
> February 2007 - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical "You tell me you're going
> to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that's 6
> billion years old?" Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. "I'm not sure which is
> more arrogant - to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it,"
> Meteorologist Mark Nolan said.

If you've got all this evidence do you not feel you would strengthen
your case by a bit of intelligent discrimination - ie by emphasising
the more cogent bits and keeping quiet about the garbage? If lots of
real climate scientists support your case why give prime position to
the guys who read the weather report of the autocue on tv? How are
these guys more qualified than, say, the Association of Mid-West
Surgical Truss Salesmen? And just to prove that they aren't, it is
about as uncontroversial as science gets these days that the the earth
is 4.5ish billion years old. Mark Johnson thinks the figure is 6
billion. Did you not know that? Do you ever remind yourself of the
Iraqi education minister?

James

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 12:13:58 PM3/19/07

"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:1174314753.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Now Lloyd. We know all about your GED. You don't have to rub it in.

Clifford

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 4:14:11 PM3/19/07

"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message

news:1174314700....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Your speaking with 20/20 hindsight Lloyd. That is a straw man argument.
AGW is nothing but a non-proven theory. Hindsight doesn't even play in
your scenario, i.e. global warming is over. So you can't have hindsight on
something that might not even be happening.

Clifford

Night of the Living Crackpots

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 5:23:56 PM3/19/07

On Mar 19, 12:14 pm, "Clifford" <every...@hitmail.com> wrote:
> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message

Lying reich-winger. Global Warming exists, because it is accurately
measured. Climate change has happened already and is recorded
worldwide and is documented. It is caused by humans without a doubt.
It harms the rich and poor both by threatens the poor the most because
they can't afford the defenses that the rich can buy to make
accommodations, like air conditioning or deeper well or flood control
measures.

It was discussed openly over 3 decades and the decision has been made
that the debate portion is closed so that emergency response actions
can go forward.

There is no new evidence and no surprises. It has been found that the
richest corporations are engaged in criminal frauds to protect their
dirty pollution sources of income and refuse to change to clean
industry investments. Career criminal accomplices in the sciences have
been exposed, identified, debunked by courtroom evidence. Paid
accomplices through front organizations regularly post deceptions to
continue the "appearance of debate" when the debate is over. No new
evidence accompanies the propaganda piece above.

Clifford

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 6:28:16 PM3/19/07

"Night of the Living Crackpots" <Crac...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in
message news:1174339436....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 19, 12:14 pm, "Clifford" <every...@hitmail.com> wrote:
>> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174314700....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 18, 10:31 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> >> SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007
>>
>> >> MIT Scientist Richard Lindzen and former UN IPCC reviewer, called
>> >> fears
>> >> of
>> >> man-made global warming 'silly' in January 2007 and equated concerns
>> >> to
>> >> 'little kids' attempting to "scare each other."
>>
>> >> Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball recently called fears of man-made
>> >> global
>> >> warming "the greatest deception in the history of science."
>>
>> > Like sampling Holocaust deniers to "prove" there is no consensus the
>> > Holocaust occurred.
>>
>> Your speaking with 20/20 hindsight Lloyd. That is a straw man argument.
>> AGW is nothing but a non-proven theory. Hindsight doesn't even play in
>> your scenario, i.e. global warming is over. So you can't have hindsight
>> on
>> something that might not even be happening.
>>
>> Clifford
>
> Lying reich-winger. Global Warming exists, because it is accurately
> measured.

.6 degrees C. over the span of 100 years is statistically unmeasurable.
No on can prove, or offer ANY credible evidence that an increase
in global temperatures is going to be detrimental to the planet or its
occupants.

Go ahead any try tard boy!

Clifford

http://Hanson-Turd.Exxon-Turds.info

unread,

Mar 19, 2007, 8:45:04 PM3/19/07

On Mar 19, 2:28 pm, "Clifford" <every...@hitmail.com> wrote:

> .6 degrees C. over the span of 100 years is statistically unmeasurable.
> No on can prove, or offer ANY credible evidence that an increase
> in global temperatures is going to be detrimental to the planet or its
> occupants.
>
> Go ahead any try tard boy!
>
> Clifford

Lying reich-winger. Global Warming exists, because it is accurately

measured. Climate change has happened already and is recorded
worldwide and is documented. It is caused by humans without a doubt.

It harms the rich and poor both but threatens the poor the most

because they can't afford the defenses that the rich can buy to make
accommodations, like air conditioning or deeper well or flood control
measures.

It was discussed openly over 3 decades and the decision has been made
that the debate portion is closed so that emergency response actions
can go forward.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 2:02:26 AM3/25/07

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:45fde...@news.iglou.com...

> SAMPLING OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SPEAKING OUT IN 2007

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors

9 December 2006

For more information:

www.aaas.org/climate

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.

These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.

Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.

In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.

The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement

(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 2:04:01 AM3/25/07

"birdog" <bir...@aol.com> wrote

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Essays on Science and Society

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:
nore...@ucsd.edu

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 2:04:54 AM3/25/07

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote

> Now Lloyd. We know all about your GED. You don't have to rub it in.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem

Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprints A large majority of
Americans - 85% - say global warming is probably happening, according to a
new
TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll. An even larger percentage
(88%)
think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say
it
threatens them a great deal; 38% feel that global warming is already a
serious
problem, and 47% feel that it will be in the future.

Just over half of Americans (52%) say weather patterns in the county where
they
live have grown more unstable in the last three years and half (50%) feel
that
average temperatures have risen in their county. A large majority (70%)
think
weather patterns globally have become more unstable in the last three years
and
56% feel average temperatures around the world have risen.

Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is "extremely important"
or
"very important" to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about
the
causes of rise in the world?s temperatures, 31% feel it is caused by the
things
people do, 19% feel it is due mostly to natural causes, and 49% feel it is a
combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the
government
should do more to address global warming, according to the poll; however,
64%
think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say President George W. Bush?s policies did
little
or nothing to help the environment in the past year. More than half (54%)
feel
American businesses did little or nothing to help. Three-quarters want to
see
Bush and others - Congress, American businesses and the American public -
take
action to help the environment in the year ahead. About one-third (35%) of
Americans say that in the past year they have personally given a lot of
thought
to the impact they were having on the environment.

Six in ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global warming and
52%
favor government mandates. A majority (61%) say they would support a
government
mandate on lowering power plant emissions, and 87% support tax breaks to
develop
water, wind and solar power. But 81% oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68%
oppose higher gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to
build
nuclear power plants.

The partisan gap on global warming seems to be shifting, according to the
poll.
In 1998, 31% of Republicans and independents alike were sure that global
warming
was happening, compared with 39% among Democrats. Today, 46% of Democrats
and
45% of independents are certain, but only 26% of Republicans feel that way,
according to the poll.

The TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll was conducted by telephone March
9-14, 2006 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results have
a
three-point error margin.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 2:05:40 AM3/25/07

"Citizen Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message news:45fe99b4.260384390@news-

> Even the Greens know its all a big hoax.

A new study by French researchers from the Laboratory of Glaciology and
Geophysics of the Environment (LGGE, CNRS / Université Joseph Fourier,
Grenoble, France) and the Laboratory of Sciences of the Cliamte and the
Environment (LSCE / IPSL, CEA / CNRS / Université de Versailles
Saint-Quentin, France), in collaboration with Chinese, Russian and
American researchers, proves that the recent warming has also affected the
ice cap on Mount Everest, in the heart of the Himalayas. This result was
published on February 7, 2007 in the European Journal "Climate of the
Past".

Relatively little is known about climate change in the Himalayas and the
Tibetan plateau. There are very few meteorological stations, and
instrumental records from glaciers, lakes or tree growth rings are rare
and difficult to interpret. However, in 2001 and 2002, Chinese scientists
drilled three ice cores in the eastern summit of the East Rongbuk glacier
that covers the north pass of Mount Everest, at 6518 meters above sea
level. These ice cores were analyzed in collaboration with the LGGE and
the LSCE, and they have shown that a new climate marker exists, the ice
core gas content, which can reconstruct the changes in summer temperatures
on this very high site.

At these altitudes, the surface snow partially melts in the summer and the
melt water percolates1 through the snow cover to refreeze deep down. This
process affects the density and size of air bubbles contained in the ice,
that is, its gas content. So the gas content is directly related to the
intensity of the summer ice melt. By measuring accurately the gas content
throughout two of the three ice cores taken from the top of Everest,
researchers have been able to follow the changes over time, going right
back to 2,000 years ago. They noted a very marked decrease in the quantity
of gas trapped in the 20th century ice, compared with the content in older
ice, which reflects recent increases in the summer melts on the glacier
surface.

Although the team has not as yet been able to quantify exactly the
temperature change over time using this new marker of trapped gas, their
research clearly shows that global warming has also affected the ice cap
on top of the world.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by CNRS.
Ads by GoogleAdvertise on this site

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 2:06:53 AM3/25/07

"Clifford" <ever...@hitmail.com> wrote

> AGW is nothing but a non-proven theory. Hindsight doesn't even play in
> your scenario, i.e. global warming is over. So you can't have hindsight on
> something that might not even be happening.

Statistical Analysis Debunks Climate Change Naysayers

Date:March 19, 2007

Despite the fact that the hundreds of scientists and reviewers on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced Feb. 2 in Paris that
global warming is "very likely" caused by human activity, governments and
other policy-makers may still justify inaction because of naysayers like
Danish weather scientist Henrik Svensmark, who maintains that global
climate change can be attributed to the proportion of cosmic rays in our
atmosphere, and atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, who asserts that
"The whole question of anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming is
central to setting any policy of climate mitigation and therefore warrants
closer examination."

"These arguments are moot," says Peter Tsigaris, an economist at Thompson
Rivers University, in Kamloops, BC. He continues: "The important question
is the cost of these opinions being wrong relative to the cost of the IPCC
report being wrong in its assessment." In a thought-provoking statistical
analysis, Tsigaris has concluded that whether or not climate change can be
wholly attributed to human factors, it makes strong business and
environmental sense to take action and mitigate the effects of global
warming beyond taking measures to adopt.
`
He arrived at this conclusion as a result of creating the solution for a
question he posed to his statistics students.

Tsigaris asked, "A claim is made that global warming is caused by humans.
Set up the null and alternative hypothesis for this claim. As a scientist,
you want to test that the above claim is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Discuss in terms of the type I and type II errors that are associated with
the claim, and discuss the implications of the errors in terms of their
associated costs."

The null hypothesis, considered true unless the evidence brought forward
throws serious doubt on it, is that global warming is not caused by human
activities; the alternative hypothesis is the claim that it is. In the
analogy of our justice system, a person on trial is assumed to be
innocent, the null, until the evidence indicates that (s)he is guilty, the
alternative, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now for the interesting part. "As a scientist, in order to reject the null
and thus accept the alternative, there has to be evidence that goes beyond
a reasonable doubt. In statistical terms, the observed test statistics
from the evidence pass beyond a reasonable doubt," explains Tsigaris.
If the scientist rejects the null, based on strong evidence in favour of
the rejection, there is still a small chance of making a type I error. In
the same way, acceptance of the null might be the wrong decision. The
latter decision would be associated with a type II error.

"A Type I error implies that you have accepted that global warming is
caused by humans when in fact it is not, while a Type II error implies the
opposite," he says.

"As one of my statistics students, Robert Guercio, wrote in his exam
booklet, 'The cost of a type I error would mean spending a great amount of
money and time focusing on how we can stop humans from causing global
warming when humans are not the problem, but the cost of a type II error
would mean spending a great deal of money and time on finding what is
causing global warming and then continue to work on some factor of global
warming, but not focusing on the real factor, humans."

It's not just a lesson in numbers, explains Tsigaris, who cautions that
the cost of a type II error, stating that global climate change is not
human-caused when in fact it is, could be as high as humankind destroying
itself. As Lovelock points out in his Gaia theory, earth is self
regulating and will look after itself.

"It is obvious that a type II error, being unaware that global warming is
caused by humans and maintaining our current living styles, is much more
serious than a type I error which argues that humans are the cause when
they are not, in terms of the costs," he says.

"Rising sea levels, temperature and precipitation caused by human
lifestyles will have an impact on our health, agriculture, forestry,
water, coastal areas, as well as on other species and natural areas," he
says, adding that "this analysis also confirms the Stern Review on The
Economics of Climate Change which suggests that the cost of taking action
today is way less than the cost of continuing the current path we have
chosen."

"The cost of changing behaviour and taking action now is estimated at one
percent of global GDP and this can be seen as an investment from a
long-term perspective: investing in cleaner technologies and also putting
a price tag on the use of our atmosphere. If we delay as we would do if we
accepted that climate change is not human-caused when this conclusion was
false, we would be faced with a huge cost," warns Tsigaris.

The recent 2007 IPCC report concluded that global warming was very likely
(90 per cent) to have been caused by humans. The Stern Review states that
"the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs
of not acting" and estimates that "if we don't act, the overall costs and
risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 per cent
of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and
impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20
per cent of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change -
can be limited to around1 per cent of global GDP each year.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Thompson
Rivers University.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 2:07:29 AM3/25/07

"Clifford" <ever...@hitmail.com> wrote

Statistical Analysis Debunks Climate Change Naysayers

Insignificant Flyspecks

unread,

Mar 25, 2007, 5:25:39 AM3/25/07

On Mar 24, 10:07 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Clifford" <every...@hitmail.com> wrote

Retief

unread,

Mar 27, 2007, 1:48:14 AM3/27/07

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:04:54 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem
>
>Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprints A large majority of
>Americans - 85% - say global warming is probably happening, according to a

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#numerum

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a
proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
For example:

"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital
punishment has a noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it
doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous."

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid
power, so there must be something to it."

Retief

Exxon's Dick Pumping Retief's Mouth

unread,

Mar 27, 2007, 1:15:33 AM3/27/07

Global Warming

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Mar 27, 2007, 4:22:52 AM3/27/07

"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote

> This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
> consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a
> proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Absolutely. But you miss the point entirely... You Pathetic RepubliKKKan
Loser.

Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem

Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006 Article ToolsPrintEmailReprints A large majority of
Americans - 85% - say global warming is probably happening, according to a

Hang all Exxon Directors

unread,

Mar 27, 2007, 3:39:40 PM3/27/07

...

Retief

unread,

Apr 1, 2007, 1:55:19 AM4/1/07

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:22:52 -0800, "Vendicar Decarian"
<BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
>> consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a
>> proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
>
> Absolutely. But you miss the point entirely... You Pathetic RepubliKKKan
>Loser.
>
>Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem

And thus Scott Nudds (aka VD), having determined that death threats,
insults, red herrings and numerous other logical fallacies have been
ineffective, he now resorts to the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad
nauseam", repeatedly posting his various discredited claims...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam

Retief

Retief Turd, Exxon Turds

unread,

Apr 1, 2007, 1:39:44 AM4/1/07

On Mar 31, 9:55 pm, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Argumentum ad
> nauseam", repeatedly posting his various discredited claims...
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nauseam
>
> Retief

A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998

http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.

TASSC "Global Warming"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Global+Warming%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

TASSC "Singer, F."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Singer%2C+F.%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Fred Singer"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Fred+Singer%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Fred Seitz"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Fred+Seitz%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

TASSC "Seitz, F"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Seitz%2C+F%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

TASSC "Lindzen, R"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Lindzen%2C+R%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Richard Lindzen"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Richard+Lindzen%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

TASSC Milloy
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+Milloy&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

TASSC Fumento
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+Fumento&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Michael Fumento"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Michael+Fumento%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

TASSC "Michaels, P"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Michaels%2C+P%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Patrick J. Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+J.+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Patrick Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

"Science & Environmental Policy Project"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Science+%26+Environmental+Policy+Project%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank

A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998

http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=521

#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998

A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600
years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990,
1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is
upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and
oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of
the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of
greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors,"
say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.[1]

The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural
changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which
reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.

So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also
methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to
strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as
readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof
on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this
"greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or
later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere
must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse
gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be
noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences
might be.

During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased
the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main
greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.

Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so
temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings,
corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the
chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized
pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the
British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct
the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.[2]

The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an
overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global
warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are
probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature.
That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3]
which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization.

For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this
scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi-
million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the
NEW YORK TIMES.[4] These corporations stand to lose by the global
climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The
Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions
to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like
the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement
will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would
otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)

In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy
corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the
industry's views of climate science and to train them in public
relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the
public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify
controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth."[4] The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a
public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.

The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being
recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist,
but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the
American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr.
Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining
scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric
ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the
George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).

Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by
attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus
conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming.
Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the
IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC
scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular
scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to
the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had
not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer
to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized"
or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong --
the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand
qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was
fully authorized.[5]

Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are
now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to
"virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S.[6] There are 10
million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and
half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates
and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which
rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass
mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look
as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The
article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued
that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and
improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has
branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."

According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend
$5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and
other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not
including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence
science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents
using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited
specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability
into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and
undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy
corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for
members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."

This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be
paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American
Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have
been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal
Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals,
a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so-
called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.[7]

Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress
and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the
evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):

** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.

** The oceans have warmed this century;

** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water
expands as it warms;

** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;

** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;

** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing
this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;

** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;

** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred
years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;

** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming
is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever,
and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans
at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)

** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by
more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been
happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996
stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and
along the Gulf coast.[8]

Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the
upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where
extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are
suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large
costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will
continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the
atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility --
none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal
companies are too powerful.

Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has
the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is
also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental
flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them
the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to
spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a
harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic
democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election
campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming
problem, these two practices will have to change.

--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

=====

[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.

[2] Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April
23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a
guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.

[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1996).

[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.

[5] Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1
(Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center
for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail:
ecofa...@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-
5920.

[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.

[7] Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in
the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol.
18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.

[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.

Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;

Vendicar Decarian

unread,

Apr 3, 2007, 2:41:59 AM4/3/07

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

0 new messages