Re: hi ... i'm a liberal that's been in a coma for 20 years ... i'm trying to get caught up on some issues and would appreciate your help ...



Why are cons so fucking dumb?- Hide quoted text -


Right on, man! I'm with ya! They are sooo stupid like that idiot,
Ronald Reagan! How'd his presidency work out? I bet it was a real
disaster.

Anyway, I'm a little confused because all the scientists listed below
have access to cutting edge computers, yet they disagree with you. Oh
well, global warming/global cooling, doesn't really matter. As long
as we have a trendy cause we can hold concerts about and that we know
that "the man" is behind it all. We can all pat our selves on the
back about how much smarter we are than those idiot conservatives.

Scientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is
attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya
Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of
the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International
Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level
of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century
- growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties
to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated
greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion,
ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat
away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [11]) (See
also [12], [13], [14])
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature
record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases
in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[15] Baliunas and
Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity
or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the
air's increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March
25, 2003) [16]
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former
botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world
is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that
can't be fixed."[17] Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty
data and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back
from the debate on global warming", [18] but in 2006 he joined a
climate skeptic organization [19] and in 2007 published a paper
arguing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than
1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given
our limited reserves of fossil fuels-certainly not before the end of
this century." [20]
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It's absurd. Of course it's going
up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial
Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not
because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [21].
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the
issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in
predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and
rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain
unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [22])
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at
the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and
describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's
climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier
of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3)
microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates
of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's
climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are
negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [23])
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that
attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that
increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a
much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This
mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical
models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the
complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We
know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past,
and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future
climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun
a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [24])
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened
without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the
current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool
slightly until about 2035" [25]
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State
University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural
alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean
salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little
understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent
temperature changes. We are not that influential."[26]) "I am of the
opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever
perpetrated on the American people." [27]) "So many people have a
vested interest in this global-warming thing-all these big labs and
research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money
to study it more."[28])
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University
and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I
think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST
of it is still natural." (Gelf Magazine, April 24, 2007) [29]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the
Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of
the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and
natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the
warming." (May 15, 2006 [30])
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean
Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-
established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar
activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse
effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of
its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all
the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of
their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is
tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the
least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux,
Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [31])
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming
"is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There
is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The
atmosphere hasn't changed much in 280 million years, and there have
always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was
the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North
Pole"[32]
Tim Patterson [33], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at
Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation
between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time
frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they
are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of
the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the
basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of
the past century's modest warming?" [34][35]
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
"We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the
whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually
follows climate change rather than drives it". [[36]]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former
president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the
scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in
the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by
carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001
[37])
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
"[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and
that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important
over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be
more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a
third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be
attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to
anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar
activity over the past few centuries. [38]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the
effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to
detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [39] "The Earth
currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific
evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study
No. 279, Sep. 2005 [40]. "It's not automatically true that warming is
bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many
economists." (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous
research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the
United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have
been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The
bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then,
yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the
recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more
important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24
April 2003 [41])
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research
at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more
significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [42])
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has
discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level
play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level
clouds, which largely regulate the Earth's surface temperature. During
the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting
reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the
warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low
cloud cover." [43]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from
University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human
impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ...,
and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as
the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations
are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise,
observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the
multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the
most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but
time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate
driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle",
Geoscience Canada, March, 2005.


Scientists in this section conclude that it is not possible to project
global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for
temperature and sea-level rise.

Roger A. Pielke, Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative
Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) wrote:
"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a
variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide.
The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the
importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and
global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the
inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of
possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not
provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation
strategies on the actual climate response that would occur." [8]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea
that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is
the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my
background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the
day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less
than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent
flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance." [9]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of
Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any
principal cause to the observed rising temperatures.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the
International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel
of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a
baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally
averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to
the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence
that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse
effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of
observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their
conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their
conclusion is baseless." [46]
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The
increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and
mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase
will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate
is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2.
Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and
the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or
fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and
century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than
the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French
version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [47])
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a
professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very
likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is
very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise
introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general
error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum
possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time
we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in
recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little
over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with
predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall
Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003[48])
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports (answering to "If
global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase
attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as
opposed to natural variability or other causes?"): "No one knows.
Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a
backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how
greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in
general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the
observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not
consistent with model simulations." [49]
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of
Colorado said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human
produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the
noise of the natural variability of the climate system." [50]
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology
and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence
of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon
dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are
natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that
carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish
between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been
done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 [51])
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The
amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years
is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown.
There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate
change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is
likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my
opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on
the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
December 6, 2006 [52])
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the
Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean
temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that
atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and
(3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the
earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to
confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what
the climate will be in the future." [53] "[T]here has been no question
whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas -
albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute
to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2
should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San
Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [54] and in Wall Street Journal,
June 26, 2006, Page A14)
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in
Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing
could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how
much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute
Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006
[55])

Scientists in this section conclude that the rising temperatures that
are occurring will be of little impact or a net positive for human
society.

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation
Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University:
"[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while
atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-
promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the
production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from
increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global
warming." ("Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched
Warmer World", co2science.org, Nov, 2003, p. 30 [56])
Patrick Michaels, state climatologist, University of Virginia:
"scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the
foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C), plus or
minus a mere quarter-degree...a modest warming is a likely
benefit."[57]


.

Loading