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 Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

More Scientists Debunk Gobal Warming Crockery

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Warming k00k @elf.org Global Warming K00ks Gone Wild again

unread,

May 16, 2007, 7:24:04 PM5/16/07

May 15, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano - Marc_...@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made
Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New
Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see
today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an
opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift
taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic
man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now
climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the
prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice
President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on
man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and
comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out
against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S.
Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government
report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself
why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.
Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently
converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of
rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter
to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See
Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a "climactic
Armageddon" )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest
science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7,
2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth
noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to
suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official
says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who
has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and
received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the
Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to
skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound
global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is
"unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being
motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has
become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or
historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious
phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories.
So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article
in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled
Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental
credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful
battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead
pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and
obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose
proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing
anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that
become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy
of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming.
"By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a
degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition,
Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter
titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists
warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great."

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his
view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic.
Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set
out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol
which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's
goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But
after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his
scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he
recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth
of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains
Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he
realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became
convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel
now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been
warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this
happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern.
But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also
said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted
that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism
instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into
things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it
is needed," he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning
scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate
change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad
culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the
evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story
sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the
media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in
February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the
C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar
activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and
"it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted
pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the
National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere
by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we
halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50%
increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected
reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is
not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006
that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on
climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He
wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he
slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more
scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover
the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists
who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each
one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one
of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW
(Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,"
he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the
Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I
devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian
government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused
global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has
weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now
skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the
evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature
data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory
evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord
Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you
do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a
scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the
scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea
that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic,
but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train,
making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't
believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people
around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And
we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt
fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were
working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of
the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans
wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing
that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data
shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric
carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece
of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in
past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting
role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more
entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political
issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public
prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate
strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the
point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans
bio link )

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for
Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in
man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about
global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on
August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when
Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I
started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one
of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of
Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If,
back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would
almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not
necessary."

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former
lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on
wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and
now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005
article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a
natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on
trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people
have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove
anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not
come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their
association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of
relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK
Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his
campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In
Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a
rainforest."

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.,
also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At
first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide
and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and
lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of
research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is
unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate
variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be
small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he
added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good
reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to
GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better
spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air
pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health
services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas
concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6,
2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen
Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been
made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us
away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of
Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of
the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing
Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has
now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007
Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming
fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was
identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently
cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make
any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the
climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue
of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up
or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early
1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the
Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air,"
Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as
doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming
was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the
other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the
atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this
data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic
modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to
ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political
issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a
man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after
conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as
a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary
for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I
changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book
"Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick
Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical
Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006
letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper
which stated in part, "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used
repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human
impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted
from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my
students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote
on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his
research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE
Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about
approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC
(Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic
Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained.
"Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the
proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic
and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to
various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and
others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could
be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his
conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I
go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go."
Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to
climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of
opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was
at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and
I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,"
Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who
believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth,
ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth.
"But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the
media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and
all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out
to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview
on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the
scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based
on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters
of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he
said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The
temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for
the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological
Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made
climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to
converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made
global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made
climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of
industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history
book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the
advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s,
I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I
have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,"
Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with
a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary
and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March
16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific
Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the
entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science,
and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based
on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2
levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known
direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck
(Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by
climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements
were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are
standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene,
medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that
these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic
warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our
time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating
that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now
to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the
science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added.
Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of
the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an
April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister
Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we
properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant
advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are
taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth
Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate
change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these
dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the
increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of
C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse
gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005
documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About
the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look
more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no
evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence
of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has
completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained.
"Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns
about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of
Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific
studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory
as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing
C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final
conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave
far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did
the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past
records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies
with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of
modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,"
Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic
alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez
the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of
climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is
my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by
proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the
planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate.
The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises
from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor
feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is
needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more
energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in
the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed
CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar
outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why
the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence
the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy
input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote.

Message has been deleted

Peter Muehlbauer Lies. Killfile the Pest

unread,

May 16, 2007, 7:38:54 PM5/16/07

"Global Warming K00ks Gone Wild again" <Global Warming k00k @ ELF.org>
wrote in news:464b9293$0$28236$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com:

> Marc Morano

"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product."
"Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product." "Doubt is our product."

http://www.markhertsgaard.com/Articles/2006/WhileWashingtonSlept/
"... But if the deniers appear to have lost the scientific argument,
they prolonged the policy battle, delaying actions to reduce emissions
when such cuts mattered most. "For 25 years, people have been warning
that we had a window of opportunity to take action, and if we waited
until the effects were obvious it would be too late to avoid major
consequences," says Oppenheimer. "Had some individual countries,
especially the United States, begun to act in the early to mid-1990s,
we might have made it. But we didn't, and now the impacts are here."

"The goal of the disinformation campaign wasn't to win the debate,"
says Gelbspan. "The goal was simply to keep the debate going. When the
public hears the media report that some scientists believe warming is
real but others don't, its reaction is 'Come back and tell us when
you're really sure.' So no political action is taken."

Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who chaired the
1994 hearings where tobacco executives unanimously declared under oath
that cigarettes were not addictive, watches today's global-warming
deniers with a sense of déją vu. It all reminds him of the
confidential slogan a top tobacco flack coined when arguing that the
science on smoking remained unsettled: "Doubt is our product." Now,
Waxman says, "not only are we seeing the same tactics the tobacco
industry used, we're seeing some of the same groups. For example, the
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was created [in 1993] to debunk
the dangers of secondhand smoking before it moved on to global
warming."

The scientific work Frederick Seitz oversaw for R. J. Reynolds from
1978 to 1987 was "perfectly fine research, but off the point," says
Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of
California, San Francisco, and a lead author of The Cigarette Papers
(1996), which exposed the inner workings of the Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation. "Looking at stress, at genetics, at lifestyle
issues let Reynolds claim it was funding real research. But then it
could cloud the issue by saying, 'Well, what about this other possible
causal factor?' It's like coming up with 57 other reasons for Hurricane
Katrina rather than global warming."

For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, "as
long as it was green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue.
We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent." Did the
research give the tobacco industry political cover? "I'll leave that to
the philosophers and priests," he replies. ..."

http://snipurl.com/txkv
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/?mode=listing&pattern=%
22Doubt+is+our+product%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=
100&sort_by=date