Global Warming? are humans to blame?


“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)

#

6

 

Ok so you want us to believe in some senate report authored by some crooked politicians that has absolutely no checks and balances behind it

rather than the findings of the national academy of sciences review panel

are you serious ?

 

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of
each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured
in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties
and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional
affiliation, and quotes 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, 2008 and 2009.

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) &
(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 “distorted” 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. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N.
Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

7

 

Ive got about 100 more pages to post, but like I stipulated. If it doesn't support YOUR position? It's lies.
So why bother.
Have a nice day, barbed wire.

barbed wire? a tongue just as sharp and a mind just as narrow?

seriously, I wish you well.

 

lies by politicians? these are the scientists own words in the report.

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of
each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured
in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties
and caveats.

 

Heat plus fuel leads to fire which leads to CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

CO2 on fire leads to extinguished fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher

 

Im not going to post any more on topic of global warming. I said yesterday I wouldnt, but when you said you were amerind, I felt I should accord you more respect. but a stubborn people you and I. Reckon we'd knock heads forever. lets just disagree with mutual respect.

 

uh

you do realize that thing is about 250 pages long don't you? so wrong again but small potato's

so what your trying to point out is that an unqualified list, not constituting an accredited survey came up with 700 of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who disagree. And your point is ?



if 97% agree that means 3% disagree. Which would seem to indicate assuming they found all that 3% that something like 23,333 agree with the theory.

well I guess you've certainly proved that point

There is a 3% and it does not agree

cool, we have now established our first even remotely scientific point of agreement.

There are those who disagree. and studies show that they represent about 3% of the whole of the climate science community as has been previously noted

 

“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.”

 

your upside down. 97% agree there is NO global warming...ach..I quit

 

again simply more distractions, yup 3% of climate scientists disagree with the IPCC findings. So I wonder how many of that 700 are actually climate scientists. I also gotta wonder why it is we're not discussing the actual science rather than yet again another opinion piece found in some senate report by a climate denying crooked politician.

 

im afraid whoever scalped you cut to the quick, my friend

 

hmmmmmm
seems like a basic lack of comprehension

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

read it a few times if you have to Yobar, I'll even highlight a few things for you.

 

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 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) &
(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)