Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Waken Tanka means great spirit in sioux. Yes. Manitou does not mean great spirit, but wikipedia says it does. Wrong. Manitou is a descripter. an adjective/adverb. Holy. I only pointed it out how not knowing how the word is used led "experts" to conclude it's a name.
You have great faith in the scientific process. But it's people who process the raw data. And people interpret data to fit their agendas.
I linked a 2008 report
http://www.google.com/search?source...445MX445&q=climate scientists dissent UN list
that over 400, more than 13 times as many scientists, including climatologists, dis-believe in global warming than the 52 in the UN commitee that do believe in it. You totally ignore that. You want to discuss how co2 is causing global warming, but I said in my original post I believed global warming is a myth, along with a vast majority of scientists. I don't care what is supposedly causing a problem that doesn't exist!
But you aren't listening, neither am I. We can only agree to disagree.

 

its not faith in the scientific process, again your trying to ascribe a religious concept to scientific principals. Also now that you've learned that Wiki is inaccurate ( I seldom use it myself ) you might want to accept that unless a paper is peer reviewed, published, cited, accepted by the community at large then its also highly suspect in its accuracy. For instance, not one link I can see on that google page you'd like us to consider has a peer reviewed status. Its virtually all simply opinion.

The subject is about global warming and if humans are to blame. All the convoluted efforts in the world aren't going to change that. So if we are discussing a scientific theory why would you insist on using an unscientific approach.

Also if a majority of scientists "don'" believe in global warming as you claim, ( citation please ) then how is it that virtually every major university has a position statement in "support" of the theory.

Deal is it takes no effort at all to look up the characteristics of CO2 nor does it take much of a leap to understand "why" its a greenhouse gas. Or the fact that combustion produces CO2 as a by product or that we are burning **** as fast as possible.

Its just baffling that some folks refuse to believe in peer reviewed work and yet insist that some journalist opinion is somehow gospel.

Deal is you can argue 1+1 doesn't equal 2 ten ways from Sunday but no mater how you slice it, 1+1 = 2

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
combustion produces CO2
we burn 90 million barrels of oil every day
creates a lot of CO2
causes warming.

whats not to believe

 

You aren't the first person I've discussed global warming with. It's not a new topic. I have 3 daughters and 2 sons, and 7 grand children, and a slew of neices and nephews, and my inlaws are all well educated. One brother in law is a doctor, another a lawyer, another a civil engineer. My father in law is a retired politician and a ranch owner, or ranches owner. He has 5. For 2 terms, (8 years) he was president (we'd say governor) of the state of Hidalgo in central Mexico. My wife has 2 degrees. Education science (teaching certificate) and Biology. I have had PHDs as deckhands aboard my ships. Only job they could get at the time. I remember one was an Entomologist. PhD. I felt pity for him. I asked him, why he'd devote so many years and so much money pursuing a degree in entomology? Didn't he know that was not a field with much of a financial future? Most of us are trying to eradicate bugs, not cure them. Of course I was joking. Entomologist? PHD? A bug doctor!.
I've researched the data and opinions because I had to. My kids and grandkids ask questions.
As I stipulated you won't accept any data you don't agree with. like my link. But you want all here on this thread to accept YOU as an authority. Sorry pal. But good luck to you.

 

Lots more distractions but what about the science

I notice your not addressing any of the salient points that have been made
I went to several parties last night with a whole slew of people, shall I digress to there professions or the topics we discussed and does that somehow lend credence to my own thoughts on those subjects. Hardly.

so lets quit with the attempt to distract from the issue.

are you suggesting that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
or that its not a byproduct of combustion
or that the byproducts of Fossil fuels combustion are not identifiable by there isotopic signatures

no
your arguing that if someone doesn't accept the opinion pieces you insist are somehow qualified scientific "data" then they must be bias. When its individual opinion that "must" be bias, and peer reviewed science that cannot be bias by virtue of the simple fact that the peer review process checks each work against the known body of science to date.

Still refusing to discuss the established basics eh

and thinking no one can see straight through it

the science is extremely clear, which is why your avoiding it so desperately

 

oh and just for fun you might want to check what your posting.

For instance, having taken no time at all to actually investigate your supporting citation you've asked me to investigate a sites that among other things entirely demolished your claim that there is a large body of dissenting opinion among the scientists involved.

"Sorry Pal" but read it and weep

from
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/marc_moranos_ipcc_dissenters/

the 8th reference down on the google page you linked as some form of support for your opinion

it does in fact the exact opposite, exposing the fallacy of any significant dissent among the scientists involved.

 

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
and is a byproduct of combustion
byproducts of Fossil fuels combustion are identifiable by there isotopic signatures
No argument. I know all that. I agree with these.

Man made CO2 causes global warming? Nope No. Emphatically NOT!
Global warming is a myth, unreal, a hoax, a scare tactic, bad science by bad scientists. Vast majority of scientists say so. Not just in one report I linked. There are youtube interviews with climatologists angry that their name is on the UN list supporting global warming and they DO NOT! In their words about themselves. On and on the data against is overwhelming.
I told my kids both sides of the argument. I explained they needed to feel out their teacher and lean their assignment towards the teachers viewpoint to get a good grade. Because so many greenpeaceniks and ecologists are rabid about the topic, if you are under their thumb, like their student, you need to pay a little respect. But I said research and form your own informed opinion. And when you are mature, you can speak your mind. While a child,you aren't free to speak your mind.
mores the pity. Hated telling them that. But it's true.

 

cant help but notice your not able to back a shred of that up with a single citation, because you can't. 97+% of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that its caused by man. Period.

How about this citation from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
rather than some list of opinion pieces that don't even support the claim
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

yup you've got a right to your own uninformed as it may be opinion but are you sure you prefer ignorance to knowledge ?

what if you had a student who insisted 1=1=3

what would you think if throughout the entire class they sat there arms folded, pout on there face and insisted they were right and you were wrong.

kinda telling isn't it when even the sites you claim support your opinion end up doing exactly the opposite

"Sorry Pal" but your only embarrassing yourself at this point.

 

the link i posted no longer points to the document it did yesterday. I'm trying to post the document, becaused I copied it to my desk top. Im having trouble posting it. be patient please

 

The link yesterday and today points to a google page of supposedly anti science articles, however upon further review many are refutations of the anti science. Which is what I found so humorous that I just had to post one of them.

is this new attempt a peer reviewed and published paper that has been checked for its accuracy ? or is it another opinion piece.

 

ill post page by page. its too big all at once.
U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &
2009
(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made
Global Warming Claims”)


U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Minority Staff Report (Inhofe)
www.epw.senate.gov/minority

Original Release: December 11, 2008
Presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland


Updated: December 22, 2008; January 27, 2009 & March 16, 2009

(Update of the 2007 Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made
Global Warming Claims in 2007”)

 

Contact: Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov (202) 224-5762
Matthew Dempsey – Matt_Dempsey@Inhofe.Senate.gov (202) 224-9797

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &
2009
INTRODUCTION:

Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe
challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority 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 700 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 300 (and
growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 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 and 2009 as a steady stream
of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments
challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is
settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 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-reviewed
studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited
“Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun;
Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes;
Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme
weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and
rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 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 exists. 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.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of
the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

 

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: Skeptical scientists
overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even
dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's
William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

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 National 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 recognition 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.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the
behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … 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 A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and
intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

 

Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700
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

3



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

4

 

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.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about
man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” -

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at
Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of
Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American
Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the
National Academy of Sciences.

“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)

5