PDA

View Full Version : US Senate Reports on Man-Made Global Warming Opponents


lnxguru
12-20-2007, 11:24 PM
The full report is extremely long, so I will apologize now to Rocket and the rest that might not be able to access it, and I'm only going to post a bit.

Introduction
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

This blockbuster Senate 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 and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “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.”

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. 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.”

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; 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; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
Source: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

I heard only a few opponents to the Man-Made Global Warming Theory when it first started making headlines and never understood how the debate could be so one-sided. Then it occurred to me that there's never really been a debate. It's been my perception that the proponents to the theory have said we're right and that's the way it is, ala Vice President Al Gore.

That line of thinking became more apparent when a couple of years ago the Weather Channel's Dr Heidi Cullen (http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html) called on the American Meteorological Society to revoke their Seal of Approval for any meteorologist who argued against the theory.

It's only been with the last year or so where I've seen and heard so many more opponents to the theory speak up. This is probably in response to VP Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as well as the report released by the UN this past spring. Recently, Weather Channel's founder referred to the theory as "the greatest scam in history (http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11621966.html)."

This is the first time that I can recall that any group within the US Congress has admitted that there was another side to the debate. I felt it necessary to help disseminate this information to the masses as I'm fairly confident you won't hear about it on the 6 O'Clock News.

L3giOn
12-20-2007, 11:49 PM
It's about time people stepped up and called out the scam. It's good to know that there's still people out there that don't let themselves get brainwashed by everything they see on CNN or MSNBC.

graf1k
12-21-2007, 12:02 AM
It's about time people stepped up and called out the scam. It's good to know that there's still people out there that don't let themselves get brainwashed by everything they see on CNN or MSNBC.

What 'scam'? It's not like scientists are out to rip us all off by saying global warming is happening and is caused by man-made pollutants. That said, even if man-made global warming turns out to be completely false (highly unlikely IMO), it's not like we should totally disregard what scientists have been saying about reducing man-made pollution. Even if pollution of the air isn't causing a greenhouse effect, it's definitely causing increasing number and severity of respiratory problems in people, and pollution of all types is assuredly a factor in the increasing rate of cancer in the population.

lnxguru
12-21-2007, 12:36 AM
What 'scam'? It's not like scientists are out to rip us all off by saying global warming is happening and is caused by man-made pollutants. That said, even if man-made global warming turns out to be completely false (highly unlikely IMO), it's not like we should totally disregard what scientists have been saying about reducing man-made pollution. Even if pollution of the air isn't causing a greenhouse effect, it's definitely causing increasing number and severity of respiratory problems in people, and pollution of all types is assuredly a factor in the increasing rate of cancer in the population.

It's like this. If a scientist gets grant money, say US$500M to perform a 10 year study to prove that Whale turds produce a pollutant in the water that when ingested by fish will react with a certain protein in the fishes system. This new modified protein when eaten by a human will cause a slow and horrible death. Not now, mind you, but once its in our system, it will grow and become more potent as it adapts to human DNA and in 3 or 4 generations we will start seeing results from what used to be nothing more than a whale turd.

Once that money has been granted, someone is going to want to see results, whether its the person/organization that granted the money to the scientist or the scientist personally.

The scientist is thinking to himself, if this turns out wrong, I'll never get grant money again.

The one who granted the money is thinking, I'd better get something for my money.

Regardless, if the "research" proves what the scientist set out to prove, then you've got someone else who is thinking, hey, we need to do something about all these rogue wale turds in the ocean. Then all of a sudden, it's alright to start whaling again. So these Japanese Whaling Companies start paying high profile people in the US to go to rallies talking about the "big bad whale turds" so more people will believe the theory and they can continue to profit.

[Yes, I understand the outlandishness of my example, but that was part of the point.]

I'm not saying all of the scientists are lying to us, I'm just saying it sounds fishy (no pun intended) to me that there is this ... scare about global warming when the results cannot be seen outside of projected weather patterns.

Let me ask one question: If the Earth had an Ice Age, why can't the opposite be true due to nothing more than normal environmental factors?

With that being said, I'm also not advocating ignoring the scientists. If you cut a tree down, plant one somewhere else. Let's find an alternative to foreign oil (if that means an economical electric car, then so be it). Of course we need to get rid of carcinogens and other pollutants in the air. But let's do it properly, honestly, and for the right reasons.

graf1k
12-21-2007, 12:55 AM
Okay first off, no one is getting a $500M research grant from the US government and certainly not from the private sector either. That said, I get your point but it doesn't seem likely to me that the overwhelming majority of scientists are involved in some vast conspiracy to make it seem like pollution in the environment is bad when it really isn't. The sad truth though is that there are corrupt scientists that will say anything for a buck, but generally I tend not to listen to the scientists that just happen to have their research funded by oil companies or something of the like and whose report just happens to state that global warming isn't real, it's not man made and more pollution controls aren't necessary and that it's all completely innocuous which completely contradicts the scientific community at large. But that's the problem. These big companies DO commission such a scientific study with a canned outcome because if they give the illusion that there is dissension in the scientific community, then obviously it's still open to debate and no action to curb carbon emissions or the like must be taken until a consensus is reached. Of course they keep funding this bogus research so that a consensus is never reached.