Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The world has never seen such freezing heat
12-11-2008, 02:01 AM,
#16
The world has never seen such freezing heat
ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) — Aerosols influence global climate by scattering incoming solar radiation, causing a cooling effect. Much of this effect results from organic aerosols, which are classified as "primary" or "secondary."

Primary organic aerosols are emitted directly into the atmosphere and are thus relatively easy to monitor. Secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), those which form from reactions of precursor gases in the atmosphere, are more elusive.

Recent research suggested that clouds are able to uptake water-soluble organics, which are then oxidized and form SOAs after cloud droplet evaporation. To better understand the dynamics of SOA formation through this pathway, Ervens et al. study isoprene, a volatile organic compound and a newly recognized source of atmospheric SOA.

Through model studies based on laboratory experiments, the authors find that SOAs form through cloud-processing depend strongly on the initial ratio of isoprene to nitrogen oxides. In this way, combustion emissions (nitrogen oxides) contribute to SOA formation from biogenic hydrocarbons.

Further, cloud-derived SOA concentrations increase with increasing cloud-contact time. The authors expect that such information can help improve climate and air quality models.

Journal reference: Secondary organic aerosol yields from cloud-processing of isoprene oxidation products. Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL031828, 2008; http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031828

Authors: Barbara Ervens: Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.; also at Earth System Research Laboratory, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.; Annmarie G. Carlton: Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, Air Resources Laboratory, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.; Barbara J. Turpin: Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A.; Katye E. Altieri: Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, new Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A.; Sonia M. Kreidenweis: Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.; Graham Feingold: Earth System Research Laboratory, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80213133256.htm
Reply
12-11-2008, 02:16 AM,
#17
The world has never seen such freezing heat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw

Stick to the basics, and avoid the politics. This series shows you how.
Reply
12-11-2008, 02:18 AM,
#18
The world has never seen such freezing heat
25 September 2008
Carbon dioxide output jumps to record level in 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/25...ref=werecommend

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The world pumped up its pollution of the chief man-made global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leading scientists' projected worst-case scenario, international researchers said Thursday.

The new numbers, called "scary" by some, were a surprise because scientists thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output jumped 3 percent from 2006 to 2007.

That's an amount that exceeds the most dire outlook for emissions from burning coal and oil and related activities as projected by a Nobel Prize-winning group of international scientists in 2007.

Meanwhile, forests and oceans, which suck up carbon dioxide, are doing so at lower rates than in the 20th century, scientists said. If those trends continue, they put the world on track for the highest predicted rises in temperature and sea level.

The pollution leader was China, followed by the United States, which data show is the leader in emissions per person in carbon dioxide output. And although several developed countries slightly cut their CO2 output in 2007, the United States churned out more.

Still, it was large increases in China, India and other developing countries that spurred the growth of carbon dioxide pollution to a record high of 9.34 billion tons of carbon (8.47 billion metric tons). Figures released by science agencies in the United States, Great Britain and Australia show that China's added emissions accounted for more than half of the worldwide increase. China passed the United States as the No. 1 carbon dioxide polluter in 2006.

Emissions in the United States rose nearly 2 percent in 2007 after declining the previous year. The U.S. produced 1.75 billion tons of carbon (1.58 billion metric tons).

"Things are happening very, very fast," said Corinne Le Quere, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey. "It's scary."

Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said he was surprised at the results, because he thought world emissions would drop because of the economic downturn. That didn't happen.

"If we're going to do something [about reducing emissions], it's got to be different than what we're doing," he said.

The emissions numbers are based on data from oil giant BP PLC, which show that China has become the major driver of world trends. China emitted 2 billion tons of carbon (1.8 billion metric tons) last year, up 7.5 percent from the previous year.

"We're shipping jobs offshore from the U.S., but we're also shipping carbon dioxide emissions with them," Marland said. "China is making fertilizer and cement and steel, and all of those are heavy energy-intensive industries."

Developing countries not asked to reduce greenhouse gases by the 1997 Kyoto treaty -- China and India are among them -- now account for 53 percent of carbon dioxide pollution. That group of nations surpassed industrialized ones in carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, a new analysis of older figures shows.

India is in position to beat Russia for the No. 3 carbon dioxide polluter, Marland said. Indonesian levels are increasing rapidly.

Denmark's emissions dropped 8 percent. The United Kingdom and Germany reduced carbon dioxide pollution by 3 percent, while France and Australia cut it by 2 percent.

Nature can't keep up with the carbon dioxide from man, Le Quere said. She said that from 1955 to 2000, the forests and oceans absorbed about 57 percent of the excess carbon dioxide, but now it's 54 percent.

What is "kind of scary" is that the worldwide emissions growth is beyond the highest growth in fossil fuel predicted just two years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

Under the panel's scenario then, temperatures would increase by 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 to 6.3 degrees Celsius) by 2100.

If this trend continues for the century, "you'd have to be luckier than hell for it just to be bad, as opposed to catastrophic," said Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider.
Reply
12-11-2008, 02:19 AM,
#19
The world has never seen such freezing heat
9 November 2008
Carbon Dioxide Levels Already In Danger Zone, Revised Theory Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81108155834.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2008) — If climate disasters are to be averted, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) must be reduced below the levels that already exist today, according to a study published in Open Atmospheric Science Journal by a group of 10 scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

The authors, who include two Yale scientists, assert that to maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, an optimum CO2 level would be less than 350 ppm — a dramatic change from most previous studies, which suggested a danger level for CO2 is likely to be 450 ppm or higher. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 385 parts per million (ppm) and is increasing by about 2 ppm each year from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and from the burning of forests.

"This work and other recent publications suggest that we have reached CO2 levels that compromise the stability of the polar ice sheets," said author Mark Pagani, Yale professor of geology and geophysics. "How fast ice sheets and sea level will respond are still poorly understood, but given the potential size of the disaster, I think it's best not to learn this lesson firsthand."

The statement is based on improved data on the Earth's climate history and ongoing observations of change, especially in the polar regions. The authors use evidence of how the Earth responded to past changes of CO2 along with more recent patterns of climate changes to show that atmospheric CO2 has already entered a danger zone.

[image]

According to the study, coal is the largest source of atmospheric CO2 and the one that would be most practical to eliminate. Oil resources already may be about half depleted, depending upon the magnitude of undiscovered reserves, and it is still not practical to capture CO2 emerging from vehicle tailpipes, the way it can be with coal-burning facilities, note the scientists. Coal, on the other hand, has larger reserves, and the authors conclude that "the only realistic way to sharply curtail CO2 emissions is phase out coal use except where CO2 is captured and sequestered."

In their model, with coal emissions phased out between 2010 and 2030, atmospheric CO2 would peak at 400-425 ppm and then slowly decline. The authors maintain that the peak CO2 level reached would depend on the accuracy of oil and gas reserve estimates and whether the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground.

The authors suggest that reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could lower atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50 ppm. They also dismiss the notion of "geo-engineering" solutions, noting that the price of artificially removing 50 ppm of CO2 from the air would be about $20 trillion.

While they note the task of moving toward an era beyond fossil fuels is Herculean, the authors conclude that it is feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II and that "the greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."

"There is a bright side to this conclusion" said lead author James Hansen of Columbia University, "Following a path that leads to a lower CO2 amount, we can alleviate a number of problems that had begun to seem inevitable, such as increased storm intensities, expanded desertification, loss of coral reefs, and loss of mountain glaciers that supply fresh water to hundreds of millions of people."

In addition to Hansen and Pagani, authors of the paper are Robert Berner from Yale University; Makiko Sato and Pushker Kharecha from the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute; David Beerling from the University of Sheffield, UK; Valerie Masson-Delmotte from CEA-CNRS-Universite de Versaille, France Maureen Raymo from Boston University; Dana Royer from Wesleyan University and James C. Zachos from the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Citation: Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 2, 217-231 (2008)
Reply
12-11-2008, 02:24 AM,
#20
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Challenges And Pathways To Earth Sustainability

ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2008) — The Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF), in the celebration of its 20th anniversary, organised a meeting whit a group of international experts to discuss the environmental future of the planet on the 2 and 3 of October.

The work of both days is summarized in the Declaration of Barcelona 2008: Challenges and Pathways to Earth Sustainability, which you will find below. Targeted to governments and to business agents from all over the world, this document claims the immediate adoption of measures to mitigate the global change and a scientific and technological revolution to advance towards a coherent sustainable development.

Full text of Barcelona Declaration 2008:Challenges and Pathways to Earth Sustainability

The coming three decades will determine whether the population of the world comes into balance with the capacity of the biosphere to support it, or whether catastrophic changes in the environment brought on by climate change, losses of biodiversity, pollution of air and water, and overharvesting of natural resources will lead to the end of the improvement of wellbeing that has characterized the Modern Era.

Current indicators are alarming. Declining trends in environmental conditions either continue unchanged from previous decades or are accelerating beyond our worst projections. There is growing evidence that irreversible changes have already occurred or are imminent.

The deterioration of the global environment continues despite current international efforts, including adoption of the Millennium Development Goals and treaties to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation. Clearly, global action to reverse the negative trends is inadequate, but it is not too late to collectively create a viable future. The scale, urgency and severity of the problems means that no action is too small to matter, too large to contemplate, or too soon to begin.

Nine scientific experts on global change, who met in Barcelona under the auspices of the Center for Ecological and Forestry Research (CREAF), call for a Scientific and Technological Revolution to enable pathways of development consistent with global sustainability. The following actions are urged:

* Immediate transition to non-carbon emitting energy systems.
* Accounting for changes in natural capital in measures of economic performance.
* Immediately begin adaptive measures to address global environmental change.
* Empowering Developing Countries to play a larger role in global solutions.

Transition to non-carbon emitting energy systems must be immediate.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the most important human induced greenhouse gas, has already exceeded the levels that can be considered safe respect to the Earth's climate. This makes it necessary to take immediate steps towards weaning the global economy off carbon emitting energies.

Leading developed countries are in the best technological, political, and economic position to begin this transition immediately while taking full economic advantage from early action. Concurrent technological transfer to developing countries will ensure a rapid global decline in emissions in light of the fact that developing countries account now for over half of all fossil fuel emissions.

Natural capital must be accounted for in measures of economic performance. The wealth of nations includes its material, human, and natural capital. In practice, material capital alone is used to indicate national economic status. As a result, even though the gross domestic product is rising, countries are often getting poorer. Taking account of changes in natural capital (the capacity of ecosystems to supply benefits to society in the future) in measures of economic performance will help countries to choose more sustainable and equitable development pathways.

This will include the decoupling of deforestation in tropical regions from development. Wasting natural capital and destroying options for the future is irrational behavior. It occurs because the information on which we base our decisions is incomplete. Greater inclusion of the full cost to society, now and in the future, in the price of products and developments would bring the power of market forces into the service of sustainable solutions.

An effective response to adapt to global environmental change must begin now. We are already experiencing the effects of climate change and other environmental changes, and these impacts will increase rapidly in the future. Development planning at all scales, including global, national, regional and local, will need to change fundamentally to be less vulnerable to new and more variable climates and to cope with changes in the delivery of ecosystem services that underlie life support systems. Institutions, organizations, and governments need to adopt a more integrative and interlinked set of policies and governance structures to increase their resilience to the impacts of global change.

Knowledge is available now to begin those actions but more trained practioners are needed to implement effective adaptive actions and share lessons learned. There is unrecognized and unused knowledge on adaptation to specific risks in low-income countries that needs to be mobilized. Research is needed to ensure that adaptation programs and activities are effective and efficient locally.

Developing Countries must be empowered to play a larger role in global solutions. Immediate investment in research infrastructure and human capacity is necessary to improve and scale-up research programs in crucial areas for development. This will create the needed national/regional capacity to deal with the global changes occurring today, strengthening both their capacity to mitigate but also to adapt to the changes, and critically come up with alternative solutions to development that are viable and appropriate local and globally. The improvement of research infrastructure in the developing countries will also deepen people's understanding of their environment and their responsibility towards sustainability, and allows for ethical choices on the development pathways to follow.

Signed: Harold Mooney (Stanford University., USA), Meinrat Andreae (Max Plank Institute, Germany), Carlos Nobre (INPE, Brazil), Robert Scholes (CSIR, South Africa), Lidia Brito (Mozambique), Kristie Ebi (USA), Ian Noble (World Bank), Josep Penuelas (CREAF-CSIC Catalonia, Spain), Josep Canadell (CSIRO, Australia)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81007120419.htm
Reply
12-11-2008, 02:30 AM,
#21
The world has never seen such freezing heat
China shying from climate obligations, adviser says

Tue Oct 7, 2008 7:49am EDT

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING (Reuters) - China and other rising economies must shoulder growing obligations to cut greenhouse gases as they climb the development ladder, said a prominent Chinese adviser who has broken ranks with his government on global warming.

Hu Angang, a public policy professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, is the most influential Chinese expert to criticize his government's stance that the fast-growing country should not assume international obligations to curb carbon dioxide and other pollutants stoking global warming.

In recent papers and now in an interview with Reuters, Hu said global climate talks culminating in Copenhagen late next year could be a final opportunity for the planet to avoid calamitous damage from more extreme storms, droughts and floods.

"I think the Copenhagen summit is a last chance not only for China but also for the world," Hu said of the talks aiming to settle on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol climate change treaty from 2013.

China should act even if rich nations drag their feet, because its geography leaves it especially vulnerable to drought, rising seas and other ravages of a changing climate, he said.

"Don't think that if China does not participate and assume obligations then it can avoid disaster," he said during Reuters Global Environment Summit.

Hu, 55, has long helped shape Chinese development policy, submitting advice to top leaders from his book-lined office in the capital's university district.

But his advocacy of steep, mandatory cuts to its emissions by as soon as 2010 puts him at odds with his government's insistence that poorer countries should not take on such caps any time soon.

China has insisted that, as a developing country with relatively low average greenhouse gas output per person, it must grow first and not accept any caps until it becomes wealthier.

China's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas pollutant from burning fossil fuels, was an average 4.1 tonnes per person in 2005, according to the International Energy Agency. The United States' per-capita average was 20.1 tonnes.

Beijing also points out that rich countries, during their industrial growth, created most of the accumulated greenhouse gas pollution now threatening to dangerously disrupt the climate.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, only 37 developed nations have obligations to curb emissions until 2012, when the pact's first phase expires.

But many rich nations are failing to meet their reduction targets, and the United States refused to ratify the Protocol, arguing it was unfair to leave China and other big polluters untethered.

"NOT A DEVELOPING COUNTRY IN THE USUAL SENSE"

In a torrent of Chinese and English, Hu laid out his argument for a radically different strategy for Beijing.

China is fast emerging from the ranks of other Third World countries, and the sheer size of its emissions places special obligations on it, he said. Many experts believe China's carbon dioxide emissions already rival the United States'.

"China is not a developing country in the usual sense. It's a constantly advancing country," he said.

"When China becomes the top polluter, it must also shoulder its responsibility to reduce emissions....China must assume its due obligations, even though the current leaders haven't grasped this."

Hu's proposed scheme for determining emission reduction burdens places countries in four tiers using the U.N. Development Programme's human development index.

China, he said, was climbing from the second tier into the first. And as it and other countries rise up the ladder, they should come under tightening obligations to cut greenhouse gas pollution, he said.

"If China does not actively cooperate ..., not only China but also globally we will suffer from this disaster," he said. "Now it's already too late, but any later and there's nothing we can do."

Hu also said his country, often regarded with suspicion by the West, could win international acclaim and a technological and economic headstart by transforming itself into a "<span style="color:#98FB98">green" power.

But the chances of such a sea change happening before Copenhagen were slim, Hu said.

"Copenhagen is more likely to fail than succeed," he said. "We just want to use the Copenhagen green summit to make Chinese people and leaders understand that China has a responsibility to the world."

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalEnvir...E4962W020081007
Reply
12-12-2008, 12:36 AM,
#22
The world has never seen such freezing heat
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Link to Full Printable PDF Report
INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.



The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviwed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmosphieric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exist. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]


Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008 article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s Financial Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."


Skeptical scientists are gaining recogniction despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” Briggs, in a March 4, 2008, report, described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK and a July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

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


“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”





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



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



“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

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


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


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


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


“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


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


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


“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.


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


“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)


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


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


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



“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

#

This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, quotes and of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distored” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming. (LINK)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...0b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Reply
12-18-2008, 01:44 AM,
#23
The world has never seen such freezing heat
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BJPAWd98v8g

Recent events...
Reply
12-18-2008, 02:00 AM,
#24
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Quote:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BJPAWd98v8g

Recent events...

oh no, not that guy again - he wears a bit thin..and this vid is essentially just conjecture.

Comments on the Senate minority report would be better
Reply
12-18-2008, 05:12 AM,
#25
The world has never seen such freezing heat
The guy quotes Government, Shell, Think Tanks (done well on economics), UN? I actually made it through a small portion of the 1st. He actually looks like his head has been too far up Al Whore's butt.
Reply
12-18-2008, 07:22 AM,
#26
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Quote:Think Tanks (done well on economics)

:LOL:
Reply
12-18-2008, 12:08 PM,
#27
The world has never seen such freezing heat
When CEOs of oil companies ask for change... that isn't conjecture. None so blind...
Reply
12-18-2008, 02:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-18-2008, 02:54 PM by ---.)
#28
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Quote:When CEOs of oil companies ask for change... that isn't conjecture. None so blind...

Yes yes, that's the standard dismissal - look more deeply beyond what you are supposed to say.

Let me get this right - trust in the scientists, you espouse (:rolleyes:)..but seemingly only when they tow the line. The information of ex- IPCC scientists - which were not and are not in the employ of oil cartels, is now violate because they have finally renounced the bandwagon...but previously we were to accept what they said without question?

nonsense.

Read the entire report, look into the scientists and then come back and try and tell me it is false information at the behest of the oil companies - if you honestly can. i know you can't.

They may be wrong - as could the other parties but they are not hired intellectual goons.

Your stock response disappoints me, I didn't think you'd actually roll that one out. We live and learn.
Reply
12-20-2008, 11:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-22-2008, 11:38 AM by JazzRoc.)
#29
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Quote:look more deeply beyond what you are supposed to say.
I'll get back to you on this.
Reply
12-20-2008, 07:19 PM,
#30
The world has never seen such freezing heat
Quote:
Quote:When CEOs of oil companies ask for change... that isn't conjecture. None so blind...

Yes yes, that's the standard dismissal - look more deeply beyond what you are supposed to say.

Let me get this right - trust in the scientists, you espouse (:rolleyes:)..but seemingly only when they tow the line. The information of ex- IPCC scientists - which were not and are not in the employ of oil cartels, is now violate because they have finally renounced the bandwagon...but previously we were to accept what they said without question?

nonsense.

Read the entire report, look into the scientists and then come back and try and tell me it is false information at the behest of the oil companies - if you honestly can. i know you can't.

They may be wrong - as could the other parties but they are not hired intellectual goons.

Your stock response disappoints me, I didn't think you'd actually roll that one out. We live and learn.


Quote:
Quote:look more deeply beyond what you are supposed to say.
Shithead. I'll get back to you on this.

I don't think that was called for, take a few days to chill out - give you an opportunity to read the report.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information The Singularity: Five Technologies That Will Change the World (and One That Won't) FastTadpole 10 6,170 01-28-2014, 05:53 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Governments around the world are spying on their citizens using FinFisher Easy Skanking 2 1,279 03-19-2013, 02:55 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
Information False Flag: Internet is out of IP addresses! The IPV6 Pillar to the Real World Web FastTadpole 3 2,378 12-03-2011, 03:50 PM
Last Post: sekular
Video Brave New World with Stephen Hawking FastTadpole 1 1,664 11-24-2011, 08:45 AM
Last Post: nwo2012
Exclamation Save MySQL, The World's Largest Open Source Database, from Oracle's Clutches FastTadpole 8 3,639 08-01-2011, 06:06 AM
Last Post: psilocybin
  Large Hadron Collider Could Be World's First Time Machine drummer 0 1,229 03-23-2011, 12:30 AM
Last Post: drummer
  The “ten second” guide to the world of skeptics icosaface 13 3,373 03-11-2011, 10:33 PM
Last Post: hubbabubba
  What in the world are they spraying? Defendfreedom 6 2,126 02-24-2011, 10:34 AM
Last Post: rena42war
  Artificial life will revolutionize our world --- 1 1,170 02-18-2010, 01:27 AM
Last Post: jack
  Our world may be a giant hologram drummer 0 910 01-07-2010, 10:12 PM
Last Post: drummer

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)