"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming." (John Coleman, Founder of Weather Channel)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/11/weather_channel_founder_global.php

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b1_1194529677

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/weather_channel_founder_calls_global_warming_great est_scam_in_history/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922607/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922411/posts

http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/55F4860C-E98E-4363-9D25-817C53FBC78F/

Finally the truth is coming out.

Pwnage

http://photos-966.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v155/106/29/26003966/n26003966_31323659_4244.jpg

HAHAHA people are so fucking diluted and confuse!

This whole global warming shit just detracts from the fact that we as humans are fucking over our planet.

Exactly. It's ok to for the Navy to dump 170,000 tons of nerve gas in the ocean. But we will ended up with another pointless fucking tax, this one on our "carbon footprint".

Plants turn carbon in oxygen.

This whole global warming shit just detracts from the fact that we as humans are fucking over our planet.

How so? We are animals too so we're supposed to be here...

Mind is the enemy

How so? We are animals too so we're supposed to be here...

There is a huge difference in being part of an ecosystem (which is what we should be) as opposed to dominating and consuming so much of the ecosystem, that the natural (keyword here is natural) balance is being thrown off by our activities. Global Warming would exist if no Humans existed, but our activities are putting that cycle into massive overdrive

Yes ending real pollution is good. Paying the global elite a carbon tax is fucking retarded and yet and way to get at our sweat equity and push us further into serfdom.

There is a huge difference in being part of an ecosystem (which is what we should be) as opposed to dominating and consuming so much of the ecosystem, that the natural (keyword here is natural) balance is being thrown off by our activities. Global Warming would exist if no Humans existed, but our activities are putting that cycle into massive overdrive



PROVE IT!

PROVE IT!

Ok ok it does exist just not in a real way like its being pushed by the globalist tax agenda.


http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

Do some reading and research not just there but where ever you want.

The sun is hotter than it has been in over 100 years.

Mar's ice caps are melting not just ours. As well Jupiter has moons that were solid ice that now orbit as pure liquid.

So yes global warming does exist but its not just our globe its the whole solar system that is warmer.

You sir are correct. I just wanted to see proof that man caused our global climate to change. There is no doubt the earth has warmed .5 degrees in the last few decades, the real questions are WHY and WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT. kermitthefrayer already pointed out that "globalwarming" is caused by fluxuations solar temperature. As for the second question the answer is NOTHING so shut the fuck up Al Gore.

Thank you god! And fuck global carbon tax fuck!

Plants turn carbon in oxygen.

You mean the plants called "trees"? 50% of the Carbon produced by humans is absorbed by the Amazon- which is being harvested at obsene rates. The spider plants in your dope den really absorb a negligable amount of carbon.

Nice sources btw. Newsmax (LOL!!!), rightwingnews.com (name says it all), a couple blogs by people who can't publish their nonsense in legitimate scientific periodicals for lack of peer review.

Lemme guess. "Global Warming" is a conspiricy that was enacted by, well you'll have to fill me in on that, but SOMEONE or group that wants to form a one world government, right? I don't get it.

I can, however, see directly who benefits from trying to debunk Global Warming. Big Oil. Period. Big money for multi-nationals if they can oppose any measure to limit human carbon emissions. But honestly there is no good (or even remotely sane) argument that can convince me there is any dark, malicious intent by those who support the accepted science that humans caused Global Warming.

Really, to what end is global warming a conspiricy? JFK assassination CT, I can see an end game. 9/11 CT, I can see an end game. Global Trade Route CT, I can see an end game. Global Warming CT? The only Global Warming CT that has a rational end game is the CT that says it's a myth.

Paying the global elite a carbon tax is fucking retarded .

What the hell does this mean? All the liberal "elites" who believe in Global Warming are suggesting a change in energy strategy- completely away from carbon based fuels. Of all people you must know that cars can run on water and/or electricity and no doubt solar? We need government to fund the equilivent of a manhatten project for clean energy independence. If not to save us from "global warming", then to end our national "serfdom" to OPEC. Why would we want to fund Fundementalism in Saudia Arabia and allow a group of Oligarch Sheiks at the world table? The middle-east has our energy infrastructure by the balls, Chinese banks have our economy by the balls...

A "carbon tax" is just a good way to compel "the maket" to get it's ass in gear. We need to make fundemental changes to our energy infrastructure for national soverienty, environmental and individual health, and simple social evolution. Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Coal and the 200 Senators and Congressmen they own (ie: the status quo) are not going to initate it either.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

Do some reading and research not just there but where ever you want.
.


Brother, you need to research who is funding these fringe websites you're sourcing. This one was funded by Exxon. Richard Mellon Scaife funds Newsmax. These are privately funded propeganda sites.

Thanks Bruce Lee, repped for sanity.

I can, however, see directly who benefits from trying to debunk Global Warming. Big Oil. Period. Big money for multi-nationals if they can oppose any measure to limit human carbon emissions. But honestly there is no good (or even remotely sane) argument that can convince me there is any dark, malicious intent by those who support the accepted science that humans caused Global Warming.




Show me some kind of scientific proof that humans can cause global climate change.

What the hell does this mean? All the liberal "elites" who believe in Global Warming are suggesting a change in energy strategy- completely away from carbon based fuels. Of all people you must know that cars can run on water and/or electricity and no doubt solar? We need government to fund the equilivent of a manhatten project for clean energy independence. If not to save us from "global warming", then to end our national "serfdom" to OPEC. Why would we want to fund Fundementalism in Saudia Arabia and allow a group of Oligarch Sheiks at the world table? The middle-east has our energy infrastructure by the balls, Chinese banks have our economy by the balls...





I totally agree, but saying liberals want a change in energy strategy it a complete lie. Its the liberals that are not allowing us to build more nuclear power plants and taxing buisness more is not going to fix anything.

Brother, you need to research who is funding these fringe websites you're sourcing. This one was funded by Exxon. Richard Mellon Scaife funds Newsmax. These are privately funded propeganda sites.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95931

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004432.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Either way we are not 100% to blame and a global carbon tax on our sweat equity isn't going to help anything but big government big business and special interest groups. d

I totally agree, but saying liberals want a change in energy strategy it a complete lie. Its the liberals that are not allowing us to build more nuclear power plants and taxing buisness more is not going to fix anything.

You're out of your depth, son.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html



C'mon, you're smarter than this.


"Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "

So you are going to grasp at any article on the web that shows one scientist working toward explaining a phenomenon and consider it to trump accepted scientific, peer reviewed theory?

The idea of irradiance heating the Earth and Mars is a hypothesis in it's most infantile stage. This guys "belief" is based on data pulled from the Mars landing in 2005. It takes decades before an idea is turned into an accepted, peer reviewed scientific theory. 30 years ago there was an article in Time magazine about 4 professors who found "evidence to suggest" that the earth is headed for an ice age. That hypothesis, however, did not stand the test of time, or peer review (like Global Warming has) and has since been tossed in the trash bin of flakey scientific ideas like a flat earth or that whites are genetically smarter than blacks.

I could find articles on the web that show 1 or 2 people with a scientific background who found "evidence to suggest" that Big Foot exists. Does that trump all the other multitude of evidence that suggests otherwise?

The Theory of Evolution is accepted by 100,000 of the greatest minds in the world as the theory for how life came to be. But one guy- Micheal Behe- found "evidence to suggest" that there is irreducibilty on the atomic level and concluded that God must have set Evolution in motion. I suppose you will ignore the 100,000 greatest minds as a "conspiricy to create one world order" and pubish Behe's peer-destroyed fallacies as the "real" theory?

Either way we are not 100% to blame and a global carbon tax on our sweat equity isn't going to help anything but big government big business and special interest groups. d


There is no accepted scientific theory that says anything other than humans created the warming (sorry but the one scientist who is using data from the 2005 Mars rover is only "accepted peer reviewed science" in the way that Intelligent Design is.)

And what does "a global carbon tax on our sweat equity" mean? It sounds like a rhetorical platitude that can't be explained.

The UN is working on a global tax for you every person on the planets "carbon foot print"

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/680

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154finan.htm

You're out of your depth, son.

You didn't address any of my points. Beat me with facts, don't give up so easy.

The UN is working on a global tax for you every person on the planets "carbon foot print"

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/680

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154finan.htm


LOL!!

The United Nations can't even water their own fucking lawn dude. LOL!!!! They have no authority to do anything. And "studying a proposal" is hardly the equivilent to "if Ron Paul doesn't get elected then their will be a carbon tax implemented RIGHT NOW!!! AHHHHHH!!!..." ... Didn't GW demonstrate the limpdickedness of the UN enough for you?

Are you a scientologist?

did u know gore got a fucking nobel prize for this bull shit, its fucking outragous

did u know gore got a fucking nobel prize for this bull shit, its fucking outragous

Its a fucking joke.

CO2 causes greenhouse effect, the expulsion of Co2 into the atmosphere has gone uncharacteristically high because of gasoline/diesel consumption, how hard is that to understand????

CO2 causes greenhouse effect, the expulsion of Co2 into the atmosphere has gone uncharacteristically high because of gasoline/diesel consumption, how hard is that to understand????

Not hard to understand just hard to believe. Do you know how much C02 a volcanic eruption can produce?

volcanoes co2 production = 200 million tonnes

Fossil Fuel C02 production = 26.8 billion tonnes

do the math

volcanoes co2 production = 200 million tonnes

Fossil Fuel C02 production = 26.8 billion tonnes

do the math

:owned:

74,000 years ago, the Toba volcano erupted in a VEI 7 explosion that pumped more than 10,000 times as much CO2 into the air as Mt. St. Helens did. At the maximum, Mt. St. Helens was giving off 22,000,000 kg of C02 daily, so Toba was putting out at least 22 billion kg per day

There are indications in the ice core records that show the cooling from Toba, but where is the global warming that should have resulted from all the CO2 put into the atmosphere? According to what I've read, the CO2 should have remained in the air long after the ash settled and that should have caused at least a warming spike, but there's no sign of extraordinary warming in the climate records. Shouldn't there always be a cooling/warming cycle after a volcano erupts? Cooling from the ash cloud, warming from the CO2 that lingers?

Same thing with the Yellowstone caldera eruption 650,000 years ago that would have put 220 billion kg of CO2 into the air (10 times as much as Toba). There's no sign of global warming in the years following the eruption.

Wheres the proof that C02 can cause global climate change?


http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

refer to post below

Ugh. Now someone needs to explain to you the diffence between a KILOGRAM and a TON. LOL!!!

Please provide a source of this info

Prove me wrong.

Ugh. Now someone needs to explain to you the diffence between a KILOGRAM and a TON. LOL!!!

Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.

The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.

That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.

The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.

The Maunder Minimum is not an isolated event: it is a cyclical phenomenon that typically appears for 70 years following 200-300 years of warming. With only a few exceptions, whenever there is a solar minimum, the Earth gets colder. For example, Europe in the 13th and 15th Centuries experienced significantly lower temperatures and in both cases the cold spells coincided with a minimum. Similar correlations were found in the 9th Century and again in the 7th Century. Since 8700 B.C., there have been at least ten major cold periods similar to the Little Ice Age. Nine of those ten cold spells coincided with Maunder Minima.

There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.

Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5° F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04° F since 1979.

Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

"Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect."

Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!

Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?



Causes of Global Climate Change
Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect."

That article was written by John K carlisle, who is not even a scientist.

http://www.calvertinstitute.org/main/experts_detail.php?sourcebook_id=59

He is a BA and MA

Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.

The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.

That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.

The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.

The Maunder Minimum is not an isolated event: it is a cyclical phenomenon that typically appears for 70 years following 200-300 years of warming. With only a few exceptions, whenever there is a solar minimum, the Earth gets colder. For example, Europe in the 13th and 15th Centuries experienced significantly lower temperatures and in both cases the cold spells coincided with a minimum. Similar correlations were found in the 9th Century and again in the 7th Century. Since 8700 B.C., there have been at least ten major cold periods similar to the Little Ice Age. Nine of those ten cold spells coincided with Maunder Minima.

There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.

Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5° F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04° F since 1979.

Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future.

written by John K Carlisle

http://www.calvertinstitute.org/main/experts_detail.php?sourcebook_id=59

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

"Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect."

Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!

Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?



Causes of Global Climate Change
Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect."

Not a scientist

Not a scientist

And you are? tumbleweed

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Sun's role "may be underestimated", speculation, not hard facts.

And you are? tumbleweed

Im a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering, and you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Newspaper article, not a research paper.

Prove me wrong.

YOU haven't written anything. You copy and pasted (like you always do) some individual opinion from an obscure think tank website that isnt in the realm of "accepted science". John K. Carlile, genius, is not even a scientist. He's a politcial operative writing unaccepted nonsense on a website funded by Exxon-Mobile.

Do you think that just because it's on a website, it's legit?!

I understand how you could be fooled into grasping at such weak straws to try and make your point. After all, you're po-dunk. Barely graduated highschool and believe in Creationsim. You lack the ability to judge the quality of information you read. You have no critical thinking ability. It's ok, our society needs people to do oil changes.

Plus you selfpwned by listing volcano emissions (kilograms HAHAHA) and asked, "where's the global warming". Well, son, the Global Warming we are experiencing is from BILLIONS OF TONS of carbon emitted from fossil fuels (cars, industry). Nobody said catastrophic weather patterns will result from volcano emissions. I don't know what your point was in posting that (other than to demonstrate your ignorance AGAIN).

Newspaper article, not a research paper.

He doesn't seem to "get it".

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html


So this is an article about ONE proffessor.

"Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report"

So a Duke physicist is > The Union of Concerned Scientists? LOL!!!

I tried to post my side with whatever info I could find. Why not instead of trying to discredit me try posting some proof that C02 can cause global climate changes and show evidence our global temperature is not related to the increase in sun activity. Explain why every planet in the solar system seems to be warming at the same rate.

And you are? tumbleweed

Are you a scientist? Me neither. Which is why I find it very important to gain knowlege about science by reading what the vast, vast, vast majoirty of the scientific community thinks.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
."


It's essentially a "myspace page" with no author. It's full of cherry picked, out of context quotes and obscure graphs that you don't understand.

Do you even read this shit you post?

Im a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering, and you?

He believes in Jesus and plays with guns. I think he changes his own oil too.

Are you a scientist? Me neither. Which is why I find it very important to gain knowlege about science by reading what the vast, vast, vast majoirty of the scientific community thinks.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

Found this on Wikipedia...

"Criticism
Physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford have criticized the UCS for opposing a US government-run nuclear waste reprocessing program. The UCS had claimed that the separation of weapons-usable plutonium from spent nuclear fuel could "make it easier for terrorists to acquire the material for making a nuclear bomb," but Marsh and Stanford argued that "reactor fuel is going to be recycled, whether we like it or not."[21].

Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia and founder of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, has said that the group has "zero credibility as a scientific organization." Singer has been labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS.[22][23]

Capitalism and free market-advocacy groups have also criticized the UCS for its stance on environmental and other regulatory issues. The UCS has been called an "unlabeled left-wing activist group",[24] and criticized as having "policy positions that are predictably those of a far-left pressure group".[25]. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, which catalogs what it asserts is liberal media bias in the United States press, has claimed that the UCS is "a left-wing activist organization...trying to position itself as being some kind of objective, centrist, moderate, apolitical entity when it is nothing of the sort."[26]

John Stossel, consumer reporter, author, and co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20, believes that the organization is unduly alarmist about climate change. He commented, "The key word in 'Union of Concerned Scientists' isn't 'Scientists' — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — but 'Concerned,' and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing." Stossel also noted that the organization's "own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology." [27]

Jerry Falwell accused the UCS (he referred to them as "these scientists") of leading evangelicals to "[fall] for all of this global warming hocus-pocus" and "[run] down meaningless rabbit trails that get our focus off of our heavenly purpose."[28]"

I tried to post my side with whatever info I could find. Why not instead of trying to discredit me try posting some proof that C02 can cause global climate changes and show evidence our global temperature is not related to the increase in sun activity.

Explain why every planet in the solar system seems to be warming at the same rate.

It's not up to "us" to discredit you. We are on the side of accepted scientific fact. It is YOU who must try to discredit our position. Proof that CO2 can cause global climate change is everywhere, which is why it's called "accepted scientifc fact".

What non-scientific newspaper article did you read that suggested "every planet in the solar system "SEEMS" to be warming at the same rate"? I know you're not talking about the ONE guy who is looking at data gathered in 2005 from the Mars rover, because all that has to do with is Mars, and no definative fact about it's temp/warming has been remotely investigated or peer reviewed. It's just a lark at this point.

Found this on Wikipedia...

]"


Self:owned:again.

Wikipedia? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You do know Oddtopsy writes half the stuff on there?

Found this on Wikipedia...

John Stossel, consumer reporter, author, and co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20, believes that the organization is unduly alarmist about climate change. He commented, "The key word in 'Union of Concerned Scientists' isn't 'Scientists' — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — [27]

Jerry Falwell accused the UCS (he referred to them as "these scientists") of leading evangelicals to "[fall] for all of this global warming hocus-pocus" and "[run] down meaningless rabbit trails that get our focus off of our heavenly purpose."[28]"


LMFAO

YOU POSTED JOHN STOSSELS OPINION AND JERRY FALWELLS OPINION ABOUT UCS!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You get stupider everday, Evil.

:owned::owned::owned::owned::owned::owned::owned:

Found this on Wikipedia...

"Criticism
Physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford have criticized the UCS for opposing a US government-run nuclear waste reprocessing program. The UCS had claimed that the separation of weapons-usable plutonium from spent nuclear fuel could "make it easier for terrorists to acquire the material for making a nuclear bomb," but Marsh and Stanford argued that "reactor fuel is going to be recycled, whether we like it or not."[21].

Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia and founder of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, has said that the group has "zero credibility as a scientific organization." Singer has been labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS.[22][23]

Capitalism and free market-advocacy groups have also criticized the UCS for its stance on environmental and other regulatory issues. The UCS has been called an "unlabeled left-wing activist group",[24] and criticized as having "policy positions that are predictably those of a far-left pressure group".[25]. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, which catalogs what it asserts is liberal media bias in the United States press, has claimed that the UCS is "a left-wing activist organization...trying to position itself as being some kind of objective, centrist, moderate, apolitical entity when it is nothing of the sort."[26]

John Stossel, consumer reporter, author, and co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20, believes that the organization is unduly alarmist about climate change. He commented, "The key word in 'Union of Concerned Scientists' isn't 'Scientists' — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — but 'Concerned,' and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing." Stossel also noted that the organization's "own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology." [27]

Jerry Falwell accused the UCS (he referred to them as "these scientists") of leading evangelicals to "[fall] for all of this global warming hocus-pocus" and "[run] down meaningless rabbit trails that get our focus off of our heavenly purpose."[28]"

John Stossel - Consumer reporter tumbleweed

Jerry Falwell - Lawyer

It's not up to "us" to discredit you. We are on the side of accepted scientific fact. It is YOU who must try to discredit our position. Proof that CO2 can cause global climate change is everywhere, which is why it's called "accepted scientifc fact".



<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aKOSiYWwcio&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aKOSiYWwcio&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Oh wait this is Fox news... blahblahblah

John Stossel - Consumer reporter tumbleweed

Jerry Falwell - Lawyer


Jerry Falwell was an evangelical preacher (who said 9/11 happened because of homosexuality) among many other gems:

Jerry Falwell Quotes

Including our favorite: "The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

General gems:

Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

God himself preserved the Bible, and brought it down through the ages.

I am saying pornography hurts anyone who reads it, garbage in, garbage out.

I think hell's a real place where real people spend a real eternity.

If I were doing something that the Bible condemns, I have two choices. I can straighten up my act, or I can somehow distort and twist and change the meaning of the Bible.

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.

In other words, my First Amendment rights and yours end where the welfare of the little people begins, and there are laws about that.

In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time- calling upon God.

Temptation has been here ever since the Garden of Eden.

The First Amendment is not without limits.

There's been a concerted effort to steal Christmas.

When you have a godly husband, a godly wife, children who respect their parents and who are loved by their parents, who provide for those children their physical and spiritual and material needs, lovingly, you have the idea unit.

Any sex outside of the marriage bond between a man and a woman is violating God's law.


On gays:

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual.

Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.

I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual.

I truly cannot imagine men with men, women with women, doing what they were not physically created to do, without abnormal stress and misbehavior.

We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage, and if we decide to establish homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle with all the benefits that go with equating it with the heterosexual lifestyle.


On global warming:

I believe that global warming is a myth. And so, therefore, I have no conscience problems at all and I'm going to buy a Suburban next time.

It is God's planet - and he's taking care of it. And I don't believe that anything we do will raise or lower the temperature one point.

The whole global warming thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability.


On Bush and the presidency:

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country. The idea was that while you can attack a public figure, you shouldn't be able to attack his mother, or is wife, or his children, they are not public figures.

I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush.

If I were president of the United States, I would include Muslims in my presidency.

My problem is not with the intentions of the Bush presidency. My problem is where it might go under his successors.


On Muslims, Jews and Israel:

And the evangelicals, 80 millions of us in America, everyone knows we're the best friends Israel has, the best friends Jewish people around the world, including America, have.

And, these Islamic fundamentalists, these radical terrorists, these Middle Eastern monsters are committed to destroying the Jewish nation, driving her into the Mediterranean, conquering the world.


On other evangelicals and other religions:

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.

But I do know the Scientology Church, like the Moslims, has a pretty hard, strong grip on their constituents.

Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.

Scientology has a terrible track record of bigotry

thats crazy

What about looking at this from a different standpoint.
Does it seem right to be allowed to pollute our earth and people with poisonous emmissions and no restrictions?
Do we even have the right to pollute our earth and people with poisonous emmissions?


Restricting emmissions can only be a good thing IMO.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NLXyEBFWwA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NLXyEBFWwA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aKOSiYWwcio&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT></P>
Oh wait this is Fox news... blahblahblah


Once again, son, that's ONE guy (yes, on Fox News- blatently politically partisian). Srsly.

You are the ultimate parody of right-wing non-thought, and you don't even know it! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Jerry Falwell was an evangelical preacher (who said 9/11 happened because of homosexuality) among many other gems:

Jerry Falwell Quotes

Including our favorite: "The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

General gems:

Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

God himself preserved the Bible, and brought it down through the ages.

I am saying pornography hurts anyone who reads it, garbage in, garbage out.

I think hell's a real place where real people spend a real eternity.

If I were doing something that the Bible condemns, I have two choices. I can straighten up my act, or I can somehow distort and twist and change the meaning of the Bible.

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.

In other words, my First Amendment rights and yours end where the welfare of the little people begins, and there are laws about that.

In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time- calling upon God.

Temptation has been here ever since the Garden of Eden.

The First Amendment is not without limits.

There's been a concerted effort to steal Christmas.

When you have a godly husband, a godly wife, children who respect their parents and who are loved by their parents, who provide for those children their physical and spiritual and material needs, lovingly, you have the idea unit.

Any sex outside of the marriage bond between a man and a woman is violating God's law.


On gays:

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual.

Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.

I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual.

I truly cannot imagine men with men, women with women, doing what they were not physically created to do, without abnormal stress and misbehavior.

We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage, and if we decide to establish homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle with all the benefits that go with equating it with the heterosexual lifestyle.


On global warming:

I believe that global warming is a myth. And so, therefore, I have no conscience problems at all and I'm going to buy a Suburban next time.

It is God's planet - and he's taking care of it. And I don't believe that anything we do will raise or lower the temperature one point.

The whole global warming thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability.


On Bush and the presidency:

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country. The idea was that while you can attack a public figure, you shouldn't be able to attack his mother, or is wife, or his children, they are not public figures.

I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush.

If I were president of the United States, I would include Muslims in my presidency.

My problem is not with the intentions of the Bush presidency. My problem is where it might go under his successors.


On Muslims, Jews and Israel:

And the evangelicals, 80 millions of us in America, everyone knows we're the best friends Israel has, the best friends Jewish people around the world, including America, have.

And, these Islamic fundamentalists, these radical terrorists, these Middle Eastern monsters are committed to destroying the Jewish nation, driving her into the Mediterranean, conquering the world.


On other evangelicals and other religions:

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.

But I do know the Scientology Church, like the Moslims, has a pretty hard, strong grip on their constituents.

Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.

Scientology has a terrible track record of bigotry


This is the guy ^^^ Evil get's scientific information from. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


/thread

This is the guy ^^^ Evil get's scientific information from. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


/thread

That is pretty funny, I really shouldn't be doing this right after a wake and bake... What do you have to say about that 2nd vid?

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1312297835968547536&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

This is the guy ^^^ Evil get's scientific information from. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


/thread


What Im missing is that i would've thought that a christian would have a little more respect and reguard for mother earth.
Earth and its flora and fauna were given to man as a gift from God and to believe u should have the right to poison her or even want to poison her I find unconscionable.

That is pretty funny, I really shouldn't be doing this right after a wake and bake... What do you have to say about that 2nd vid?

Videos dont cut it. If you post hard research done towards the same it would seem more credible.

<EMBED id=VideoPlayback style="WIDTH: 400px; HEIGHT: 326px" src=""http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1312297835968547536&hl=en type=application/x-shockwave-flash flashvars=""> </EMBED>


Glenn Beck AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Let me tell you right up front that this is not a balance look at Global Warming..." Orly?

:owned:

What Im missing is that i would've thought that a christian would have a little more respect and reguard for mother earth.
Earth and its flora and fauna were given to man as a gift from God and to believe u should have the right to poison her or even want to poison her I find unconscionable.

I don't believe that carbon is poisoning the earth because I have yet to see proof that humans can impact the enviromnent on a global scale. If someone can prove that carbon is pollution then they must come up with a reasonable answer.

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO STOPPING CARBON POLLUTION?


China is going to be the #1 contributer to "carbon pollution" ans they have no plans of cleaning up. I'll ask again. What can be done to stop "globalwarming" and are MORE TAXES really the answer?

<EMBED id=VideoPlayback style="WIDTH: 400px; HEIGHT: 326px" src=""http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1312297835968547536&hl=en type=application/x-shockwave-flash flashvars=""> </EMBED>


"The thing about Climate Change is that it takes many years, generations to get answers..."

Well you selfpwnt again. This pretty much destroys the arguments you previously tried to make about "Mars and Earth warming from the Suns irradiance not global warming from fossil fuels" (because that hypothesis is based on data pulled from 2005).

You've already discredited yourself. You dont need to keep posting. LOL!!!

Glenn Beck AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Let me tell you right up front that this is not a balance look at Global Warming..." Orly?

:owned:

You will not even listen to the other side you arrogant prick! How can you possibly come up with an unbiast opinion? Self PWNT!

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO STOPPING CARBON POLLUTION?


China is going to be the #1 contributer to "carbon pollution" ans they have no plans of cleaning up. I'll ask again. What can be done to stop "globalwarming" and are MORE TAXES really the answer?

It's called technological innovation. The U.S. has the brains and money to develop fuels and energy that are not "carbon based fossil fuels". Solar power, wind power, hydro power, sawgrass power etc... When the U.S. creates a new technology that allows us to be more engery efficient, the rest of the world (China included) will do what they've always done. Buy our technology from us and try to "keep up with the jonses". Or they'll fall behind.

The only way we would need to tax americans to create new technology, is if the "private sector" (ie: the free market) fails to act. Which they always do. I don't like taxes anymore than you do, but when the private sector fails to do something (like create cancer or aids drugs, or send a rover to Mars for research) the our government will have to.

Innovation, change, progressiveness- it's the American way.

I don't believe that carbon is poisoning the earth because I have yet to see proof that humans can impact the enviromnent on a global scale. If someone can prove that carbon is pollution then they must come up with a reasonable answer.

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO STOPPING CARBON POLLUTION?




China is going to be the #1 contributer to "carbon pollution" ans they have no plans of cleaning up. I'll ask again. What can be done to stop "globalwarming" and are MORE TAXES really the answer?


I agree that your govt should focus more on alternate ways of dealing with the problem than putting dumb additional taxes, you have an argument there, but you can in no way deny the contribution of CO2 to global warming, if you are you are living in denial just to avoid the tax.

I agree that your govt should focus more on alternate ways of dealing with the problem than putting dumb additional taxes, you have an argument there, but you can in no way deny the contribution of CO2 to global warming, if you are you are living in denial just to avoid the tax.

On second thoughts, they maybe putting those taxes to come up with alternate methods of dealing with the problem....

You will not even listen to the other side you arrogant prick! How can you possibly come up with an unbiast opinion? Self PWNT!

You think this thread is the first time I've seen or read about "the other side"? LOL!! And let's be honest, You are the one posting BIASED OPINIONS on the subject from newscasters, evangelical preachers, or individual scientists who aren't peer reviewed.

It's called technological innovation. The U.S. has the brains and money to develop fuels and energy that are not "carbon based fossil fuels". Solar power, wind power, hydro power, sawgrass power etc... When the U.S. creates a new technology that allows us to be more engery efficient, the rest of the world (China included) will do what they've always done. Buy our technology from us and try to "keep up with the jonses". Or they'll fall behind.

The only way we would need to tax americans to create new technology, is if the "private sector" (ie: the free market) fails to act. Which they always do. I don't like taxes anymore than you do, but when the private sector fails to do something (like create cancer or aids drugs, or send a rover to Mars for research) the our government will have to.

Innovation, change, progressiveness- it's the American way.


I think that more innovation would take place in the private sector of the government would stay out of the way. How is taking more money from private buisness going to help them progress? Your right about innovation being the answer but if anything tax cuts on the private sector would help create more jobs and more opportunity for change. Also if we get ourselfs off of fossil fuels wouldn't the price of oil go down? Why would China want to buy expensive energy when they can keep using cheep oil and coil power.

I agree that your govt should focus more on alternate ways of dealing with the problem than putting dumb additional taxes, you have an argument there, but you can in no way deny the contribution of CO2 to global warming, if you are you are living in denial just to avoid the tax.

Please show proof of C02s contribution to global warming.

Australia recently joined kyoto.

America should too imo.

Please show proof of C02s contribution to global warming.

First the basics

Greenhouse effect

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

Also if we get ourselfs off of fossil fuels wouldn't the price of oil go down? Why would China want to buy expensive energy when they can keep using cheep oil and coil power.

Fossil Fuels are not only pollutive, they are also finite... No country of a billion people is going to create an energy infrastructure that they know isn't going to be sustainable beyond 50 years if they have an alternative.

If the U.S. does create the "next big technology", and China chooses to continue suckeling off OPEC's tit, no problem. Bigger fall for them when oil finally runs out.

ps.. there is no reason to assume that new technology would be "more expesive" than oil. New technology get's adopted because it's MORE EFFICIENT, not less.

Please show proof of C02s contribution to global warming.

One of the research papers

http://www.uni-koblenz.de/anglistik/subjects/as/papers/siebenborn.html

Please show proof of C02s contribution to global warming.

jesus christ even Glenn Beck (in the vid you posted) said it's not up for debate that CO2 causes the earth to warm (an average of .7 degrees globally in the last 30 years) This is indeed a fact. The debate is how MUCH of that warming is caused by burning of fossil fuels (and is it enough to compel us to change our behavior).

You can't even keep up with your own bullshit.

Fossil Fuels are not only pollutive, they are also finite... No country of a billion people is going to create an energy infrastructure that they know isn't going to be sustainable beyond 50 years if they have an alternative.

If the U.S. does create the "next big technology", and China chooses to continue suckeling off OPEC's tit, no problem. Bigger fall for them when oil finally runs out.

ps.. there is no reason to assume that new technology would be "more expesive" than oil. New technology get's adopted because it's MORE EFFICIENT, not less.

Pure speculation.

jesus christ even Glenn Beck (in the vid you posted) said it's not up for debate that CO2 causes the earth to warm (an average of .7 degrees globally in the last 30 years) This is indeed a fact. The debate is how MUCH of that warming is caused by burning of fossil fuels (and is it enough to compel us to change our behavior).

You can't even keep up with your own bullshit.

No, Glenn said its not up to debate that the earth has warmed. The debate is what caused this warming and what can we do about it. C02 could be the cause but its not been proven. Even if C02 is the cause theres still no good answer on what can be done about it, I refuse to accept taxing mine or your carbon footprint will solve anything.

1-No, Glenn said its not up to debate that the earth has warmed. The debate is what caused this warming and what can we do about it. C02 could be the cause but its not been proven.

2- Even if C02 is the cause theres still no good answer on what can be done about it, I refuse to accept taxing mine or your carbon footprint will solve anything.

1- The Greenhouse Effect is real, factual, and can't be debated.

2- Taxing a mine and using the money to create new technology will solve the problem.

And you've proven that you accept Jerry Falwells opinions on science and you believe in creationism... so you don't count.

WAR TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pure speculation.

Saying that Jesus is teh son of a god is pure speculation.

Saying that Fossil Fuels are pollutive and finite is not only accepted scientific fact, it's common knowledge.

I believe Science is the way for humans to deduce truth about our world. You believe Jerry Falwell and Glenn Becks opinion on stuff they aren't qualified to judge is the way for humans to deduce truth about out world.

Your kids will landscape my kids lawns.

WAR TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

end of thread

Your kids will landscape my kids lawns.


Lucky for you I don't plan on having kids.

Breaking news!!! - Global warming not real

click here (http://www.nh-dwi.com/caip-202.htm) for more info!!!!!

Im waiting for kermit to show up and blame it all on the jews, illuminati and the new world order

This tears to shreads the idea that man made global warming is a scientific consensus. :owned:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:


Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”



Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.



Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.





Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."



Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.



France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”



Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”



Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “



Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”



Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”



Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.



India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”



USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”



Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."



New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”



South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”



Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”



Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”



Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”



China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”



Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”





Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”



Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”



USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

The report is:

* not written by scientists, and
* not sponsored by any US government agency.
* not a formal report even of any US Senate committee.

It is instead a "minority report" that is written and distributed by Oklahoma Senator Jim Inohofe's office.

Inohofe is trying to counter the Bush administration's much-admired presentation on global-warming at the Bali conference:


What Was That All About?

... (Let's) make America the model of how a country can grow prosperous, secure, innovative and healthy by becoming the most clean, energy-efficient nation in the world — and let everyone follow us.

There was a revealing encounter here (in Bali) Thursday between the U.S. negotiating team and environmentalists that was worthy of pay-per-view.

The American team was giving its big briefing. The room was packed with activists from around the world. They came loaded to carve up the Americans, who, it was just assumed, had to be stupid because they represented the Bush administration.

And then something unexpected happened. For 90 minutes, Andy Karsner, who runs the Department of Energy’s renewable energy programs, James Connaughton, who heads White House climate policy, and their colleagues put on a PowerPoint performance that was riveting in its understanding of the climate problem and the technologies needed to solve it.

Their mastery of the subject was so impressive that it left the room full of global activists emotionally confused: it was obvious that these U.S. officials really knew their stuff.

Lucky for you I don't plan on having kids.

That's the best news I've heard all day.