31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

"maynard wrote:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday

The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday.

Although this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, DC., it seems a metaphysical certitude media will completely ignore the event.

I wonder if any of these people have read the most recent research that again supports global warming as being helped along by man.

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?
29 Apr 08

UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. We've published more quotes here.

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

I don't understand how any reasonable person can deny that increased carbon dioxide levels directly causes global warming. There may be some question about the degree to which CO2 caused by mankind effects the planet but I don't see how they can deny that it does contribute to warming.

I'd like to see what evidence they put forth to support their position.

"Celtkin wrote:

I don't understand how any reasonable person can deny that increased carbon dioxide levels directly causes global warming. I'd like to see what evidence they put forth to support their position.

Most of these people are arguing minutiae of the debate but not the prime hypothesis that CO2 levels created by man-made pollution is helping the green house affect.

"Celtkin wrote:

I don't understand how any reasonable person can deny that increased carbon dioxide levels directly causes global warming. There may be some question about the degree to which CO2 caused by mankind effects the planet but I don't see how they can deny that it does contribute to warming.

I'd like to see what evidence they put forth to support their position.

I think that's just it. Earth has a long history of warming and cooling periods, the question is "is the amount that we contribute enough to cause irreversible damage?".

"like2god wrote:

I think that's just it. Earth has a long history of warming and cooling periods, the question is "is the amount that we contribute enough to cause irreversible damage?".

I think with ozone layer damage we've seen that man-made effects can cause long lasting damage to the Earth. Now is global climate change going to be as difficult to reverse, I'm not sure. But limiting our green house gas production isn't going to make the problem worse.

"Celtkin wrote:

I don't understand how any reasonable person can deny that increased carbon dioxide levels directly causes global warming.

Because there's no proof that global warming is even occurring, let alone that carbon dioxide--the chemical formerly known as "the primary composition of the Earth's atmosphere"--contributes to the phenomenon. That's the entire point. No one has shown a cause-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature levels.

I don't understand how anyone can buy into the theory of global warming considering how thoroughly the methodology used by its proponents has been debunked. I particularly like how the temperature data cited by global warming proponents came from measurement stations that were borderline comedic in their placement.

The concept of global warming has become so rightfully and thoroughly mocked that proponents had to engage in semantics--it's now referred to as "climate change," because it's actually been more persuasively argued that the planet is cooling. The irony in all this is that excessive cooling is far more dangerous to life on this planet than excessive warming. (And one degree is not exactly excessive warming.)

"Desides wrote:

Because there's no proof that global warming is even occurring, let alone that carbon dioxide--the chemical formerly known as "the primary composition of the Earth's atmosphere"--contributes to the phenomenon. That's the entire point. No one has shown a cause-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature levels.

I don't understand how anyone can buy into the theory of global warming considering how thoroughly the methodology used by its proponents has been debunked. I particularly like how the temperature data cited by global warming proponents came from measurement stations that were borderline comedic in their placement.

The concept of global warming has become so rightfully and thoroughly mocked that proponents had to engage in semantics--it's now referred to as "climate change," because it's actually been more persuasively argued that the planet is cooling. The irony in all this is that excessive cooling is far more dangerous to life on this planet than excessive warming. (And one degree is not exactly excessive warming.)

Incorrect, sir !

While there is no clear data of the degree to which CO2 created by mankind contributes to global warming, no one with a basic understanding of chemistry denies that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and does contribute to global warming.

The earth has gone through cooling and warming phases over the ages, some speculate, due to sunspot activity. However, the latest warming trend that seems to correspond with the widespread use of fossil fuel, exceeded anything in the geological/fossil record. So, it is not unreasonable to connect the dots.

As for the argument that global cooling is potentially more dangerous to man that would global warming, I have made the argument many times in the past. ;)

i'm more worried about the chloro-floro carbons that keep eating away at the ozone.

i remember in organic chem, my professor said, that even if we stop using them all together,that the chain reactions of the chloro-floro carbons will still continue to eat away at the ozone for the next 100 years.

"Desides wrote:

Because there's no proof that global warming is even occurring

So how come that literally each and every NASA analysis comes to a different result?

I've looked into the hypothesis of Man Centered Global Warming and quite frankly, it is seriously lacking in both modeling, and basic facts to support it.

The idea that "The Globe is on an irreversible warming trend and the results will be catastrophic" is pretty much Hokum, for a start, there exists no way to accurately model clouds, nor track rainfall across the globe at any given moment.

Secondly, while "The north pole ice is melting" the South Pole is gaining ice.

Thirdly, the Atlantic Ocean managed to do what no scientist had ever recorded before, it "bled" off the excessive heat that had built up into the atmosphere, things like that happening, previously unobserved activity is a big hole in the broadside of the Global Warming Titanic.

There are things that should be done to safeguard our shared environment on a global scale, such as handling the smokestack emissions from coal fired power plants in order to reduce the amount of mercury that is making it into our potable waters, but a global fight against an opponent that does not exist is the height of silliness.

"padre31 wrote:

I've looked into the hypothesis of Man Centered Global Warming and quite frankly, it is seriously lacking in both modeling, and basic facts to support it.

The idea that "The Globe is on an irreversible warming trend and the results will be catastrophic" is pretty much Hokum, for a start, there exists no way to accurately model clouds, nor track rainfall across the globe at any given moment.

Secondly, while "The north pole ice is melting" the South Pole is gaining ice.

Thirdly, the Atlantic Ocean managed to do what no scientist had ever recorded before, it "bled" off the excessive heat that had built up into the atmosphere, things like that happening, previously unobserved activity is a big hole in the broadside of the Global Warming Titanic.

There are things that should be done to safeguard our shared environment on a global scale, such as handling the smokestack emissions from coal fired power plants in order to reduce the amount of mercury that is making it into our potable waters, but a global fight against an opponent that does not exist is the height of silliness.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I'm glad that you've taken some time to research this, but there are alot of papers that have been written that agree with the consensus, or don't disagree with it. Here's close to a thousand pieces of seperate research that partly come to similar conclusions, conclusions supported by the scientific bodies that the researchers are a part of.

"Darkoak wrote:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I'm glad that you've taken some time to research this, but there are alot of papers that have been written that agree with the consensus, or don't disagree with it. Here's close to a thousand pieces of seperate research that partly come to similar conclusions, conclusions supported by the scientific bodies that the researchers are a part of.

The basic problem is the modeling is flawed because it is incomplete.

For example, now a study has come out stating that the Earth will go through a period of cooling due to naturally occuring shifts in the currents in the oceans:

So, in research published in Nature on Thursday, it would seem the North Atlantic is about to get a little cooler. Mojib Latif, professor at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, northern Germany and his team predict a cooling in North American and European regions, whilst the temperatures of tropical regions will be stabilized. Scientists have known about the weakening of the Gulf Stream for a long time, but this is one of the first studies to demonstrate how this process may influence global temperatures and how global warming isn't necessarily a gradual increase. But there's a catch. This trend can only be sustained for ten years, after which atmospheric global warming will continue to increase at the IPCC rate. The German scientists are clear that they are not disputing the IPCC figures:

Now it is not my contention to argue the Science of the matter at hand, I will say that when it was revelead that satellite data collected since 1979 was inaccurate, it became apparent that an attempt to shoe horn studies into a hypothesis was under way for reasons known only to those who are championing the idea.

That hypothesis is that in 50 years, mankind will have implemented a massive warm up of the Earth, 50 years from now based on models that are flawed is B$, that is no way to plan nor even to see the results of the massive changes that they seek even on a mircro level.

"Vendigo wrote:

So how come that literally each and every NASA analysis comes to a different result?

Because NASA's methodology is flawed and relies on the bad temperature data I've mentioned before.

Just because the government says something doesn't make it true.

#1 fan wrote:

i'm more worried about the chloro-floro carbons that keep eating away at the ozone.

Don't waste the energy. It's closing itself. Futhermore, there's some evidence that pollutants serve the same function as ozone--so, basically, all that car exhaust is helping to save the environment. :up:

Celtkin wrote:

While there is no clear data of the degree to which CO2 created by mankind contributes to global warming, no one with a basic understanding of chemistry denies that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and does contribute to global warming.

There's still no proof of it. It's conjecture presented as fact by a specific clique of researchers.

The earth has gone through cooling and warming phases over the ages, some speculate, due to sunspot activity. However, the latest warming trend that seems to correspond with the widespread use of fossil fuel, exceeded anything in the geological/fossil record. So, it is not unreasonable to connect the dots.

Except there is no warming trend. In fact, the current trend is a slight cooling, not warming. (The only data that shows a warming trend comes from the flawed temperature measurement stations. Are you really going to rely on temperature data taken in part from a sensor placed adjacent to an air conditioning heat vent? I'm not!)

One reason the global warming crowd pisses me off is that the evidence actually points to global coolling, which is a far bigger disaster to this planet than the one degree rise in temperatures pushed by a group of politically-motivated idiots. One degree temperature rise is great for the planet and for us; but if we have another Little Ice Age, say goodbye to sustainable crop yields. Time to start those space-based food gardens NASA's been talking about.

"padre31 wrote:

The basic problem is the modeling is flawed because it is incomplete.

For example, now a study has come out stating that the Earth will go through a period of cooling due to naturally occuring shifts in the currents in the oceans:

Now it is not my contention to argue the Science of the matter at hand, I will say that when it was revelead that satellite data collected since 1979 was inaccurate, it became apparent that an attempt to shoe horn studies into a hypothesis was under way for reasons known only to those who are championing the idea.

That hypothesis is that in 50 years, mankind will have implemented a massive warm up of the Earth, 50 years from now based on models that are flawed is B$, that is no way to plan nor even to see the results of the massive changes that they seek even on a mircro level.

Ok so the alternative is to continue producing hydrocarbons at the current rate or even to increase them right? Frankly I think alot of people oppose doing something about CO2 production mainly because it will affect how they get to live their lives. That's a fair place to be coming from, nobody likes to shake the mellon cart particularly if you have most of the mellons, like the USA for example.

I've been reading up about the 31000 signatures against the consensus and have found it interesting that there are not 31000 seperate pieces of research against global warming attached to the petition. Also from what I can tell the majority of signees aren't even climate researchers at all. Now we have to also assume that these 31000 signees have read and reviewed every piece of climate research, yay, or ney, that has been written on the subject and based on their total number invalidates that research based on their number of dissenting votes?!?! I love how that's how it is being presented, that their number invalidates the science. What a joke.

Now the one thing that I will agree on is that there isn't a consensus the way the Gore makes it out to be, and for that I'm glad. The whole point of science isn't to prove something it is to disprove something that's why you put your theory out there, for other to take apart. I would just feel a little better if it was a climate scientist and not a PhD of veterinary medicine doing it.

Well, the gore issue is a part of the problem, he has hijacked the research and then painted a picture of death and South Florida under water...good thing we're the Dolphins...:lol:

Seriously though, one of the large clubs the "pro" camp used was "5,000 scientists agree" now "31,000 scientists disagree" what the fact of the matter is seems to be a muddle, "yes" there was a period of warming, "yes" the warming curve was steep.

However, those effects have stopped, or at the very least, not followed the upward curve that had been projected.

The real issue here (to me) is not the use of carbons, it is the North American reliance on them to operate our economies, our political lack of willingness to take positive steps to reduce the dependence on carbons not the effects of using them.

"padre31 wrote:

The real issue here (to me) is not the use of carbons, it is the North American reliance on them to operate our economies, our political lack of willingness to take positive steps to reduce the dependence on carbons not the effects of using them.

But can't a reduction on our reliance to fossil fuels and a reduction in CO2 emissions go hand in hand?

Alot of the climate research that I've been reading is based on science up here in Canuckistan where the effects of climate change are seen throughout the arctic.

"Desides wrote:

Because NASA's methodology is flawed and relies on the bad temperature data I've mentioned before.

Just because the government says something doesn't make it true.

Don't waste the energy. It's closing itself. Futhermore, there's some evidence that pollutants serve the same function as ozone--so, basically, all that car exhaust is helping to save the environment. :up:

There's still no proof of it. It's conjecture presented as fact by a specific clique of researchers.

Except there is no warming trend. In fact, the current trend is a slight cooling, not warming. (The only data that shows a warming trend comes from the flawed temperature measurement stations. Are you really going to rely on temperature data taken in part from a sensor placed adjacent to an air conditioning heat vent? I'm not!)

One reason the global warming crowd pisses me off is that the evidence actually points to global coolling, which is a far bigger disaster to this planet than the one degree rise in temperatures pushed by a group of politically-motivated idiots. One degree temperature rise is great for the planet and for us; but if we have another Little Ice Age, say goodbye to sustainable crop yields. Time to start those space-based food gardens NASA's been talking about.

There absolutely is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can contribute to global warming.

Please show me the evidence of this wide-spread faulty measurements.

As for your second argument. I'd like to see your evidence of that as well.

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

NASA

Coorelations between CO2 and temperature

http://www.epa.gov/

EPA

Information about greenhouse gases:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Again, there is no clear evidence to what degree greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming but the fact remains that CO2 and methane generated by humans can contribute to global warming and the rate of temperature change seems to correlate with the rate at which man generates CO2 and methane.

Just an fyi even if the north pole is melting while the south pole is getting larger, it still will equal a shift in earth's magnetic field which will be disastrous.

It doesn't matter whether global warming is or isn't real.

We take horrible care of the Earth and have destroyed more than our share of it. It's wrong whether it threatens to kill us off or not.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

Just an fyi even if the north pole is melting while the south pole is getting larger, it still will equal a shift in earth's magnetic field which will be disastrous.

Doesn't the orientation of the magnetic field have to do with the spin of the liquid iron core of the earth? What role does the size of the polar caps have to do with it?

I am confused.

"Celtkin wrote:

There absolutely is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can contribute to global warming.

Please show me the evidence of this wide-spread faulty measurements.

As for your second argument. I'd like to see your evidence of that as well.

NASA

Coorelations between CO2 and temperature

http://www.epa.gov/

EPA

Information about greenhouse gases:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Again, there is no clear evidence to what degree greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming but the fact remains that CO2 and methane generated by humans can contribute to global warming and the rate of temperature change seems to correlate with the rate at which man generates CO2 and methane.

"Celtkin wrote:

There absolutely is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can contribute to global warming.

Please show me the evidence of this wide-spread faulty measurements.

As for your second argument. I'd like to see your evidence of that as well.

NASA

Coorelations between CO2 and temperature

http://www.epa.gov/

EPA

Information about greenhouse gases:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Again, there is no clear evidence to what degree greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming but the fact remains that CO2 and methane generated by humans can contribute to global warming and the rate of temperature change seems to correlate with the rate at which man generates CO2 and methane.

I'm curious Celtkin, why does your chart stop at 2006?

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
advertisement

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

The writer is a paleoclimatologist, the "hockey stick" graph is deeply flawed as well Celtkin:

The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness

from:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011848/posts

(The original article from National Post is no longer available. )

"Celtkin wrote:

Doesn't the orientation of the magnetic field have to do with the spin of the liquid iron core of the earth? What role does the size of the polar caps have to do with it?

I am confused.

You are right but I believe, and I guess I shouldn't quote this as absolute since its a theory, that the sudden shift in weight will throw the rotation of the earth off, thus causing a change in the liquid metal flow thus causing a change in the magnetic field.

In computer simulations, it is observed that magnetic field lines can sometimes become tangled and disorganized through the chaotic motions of liquid metal in the Earth's core.
In some simulations, this leads to an instability in which the magnetic field spontaneously flips over into the opposite orientation.

"Alex44 wrote:

It doesn't matter whether global warming is or isn't real.

We take horrible care of the Earth and have destroyed more than our share of it. It's wrong whether it threatens to kill us off or not.

I disagree with this whole heartedly, it does matter, if action is called for, then it should be based on "facts" not "feelings" otherwise no problem will ever be properly "fixed" because it won't be "fixed" it will "feel" like something has been done and that is a huge mistake.