Al set to pick up his Nobel Prize

Veritas said:
You sound like a broken record or, if you prefer, a parrot.

It is obvious that you cannot refute any of these facts.

Thanks for playing. Game over. Checkmate. You lose.

Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Never made an attempt to refute your facts from a very questionable source.

You use questionable sources and I'm the idiot? :lol:

No checkmate here either.....

I got a Nuke
 
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

-Abraham Lincoln
 
Veritas said:
Consider the source.
Click to expand...

400 scientists with no credibility :lol:

Can the TRUTH FAIRY dispute this?

Global warming bias
Friday, January 4, 2008

It seems the world is jumping into the global warming waters the same way those Polar Bear Club members jump into some frigid body of water each New Year's Day -- with abandon.

How about an honest debate about global warming in 2008?

Pittsburgh native John Tierney gave the not-so Chicken Littles a small ray of hope the other day in his "Findings" column in The New York Times. Last year was not the hottest year on record, as British meteorologists had predicted it would be, he notes. In fact, 2007's global temperature average was lower than any year since 2001.

And Mr. Tierney also notes how the Antarctic sea ice last year hit the highest level ever recorded. But you wouldn't know it from most of the mainstream media's coverage.

And you likely didn't hear a whole lot -- or anything -- about the peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres that halved the previously calculated rate at which the planet has warmed.

What's even more astounding is that one of the authors of the rectifying study -- Patrick J. Michaels -- is a member of the global alarmists' much revered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Tierney also documents this tawdry little global warming reporting phenomenon, citing a look-see by Roger Pielke Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado. He exposed the gaping disparity in the number of news articles regarding studies that reached opposite conclusions about the nexus between global warming and increased hurricane activity.

A study in the obscure Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society that talked up the link resulted in more than 26 times the media coverage than a study in the more mainstream journal Nature that downplayed any nexus.

As Mr. Michaels notes, "Theoretically, assuming unbiased climate research, every new finding should have an equal probability of indicating that things are going to be more or less warm, or worse-than-we-thought vs. not-so-bad."

But the fact is much of the climate research is biased and so is the reportage. And that only confirms what many have suspected all along -- global warming isn't about the planet but about politics, power and social re-engineering.
Click to expand...
 
delldude said:
400 scientists with no credibility :lol:
Click to expand...

This report was authored by Marc Morano the communications director of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."

SourceWatch

I got the following from a friend of mine who vetted Morano's report and posted his findings on another board:

That report was put together by Marc Morano, known for being the first reporter to report the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" story. He's a good fiction writer. His big dumb list is full of duplicates and weathermen and crackpots and/or people who don't actually dispute AGW:

For example, Morano quotes Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Centre offering this banal statement of the obvious: ""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." Morano, however, neglects to mention that Dr. Friis-Christensen says, quite clearly, that change is solar radiation CANNOT be demonstrated to have caused the climate change of recent years. In fact, he says: "There is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases."

Another "prominent scientist" is listed as "Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean, who, by his own self-described webpage, is a computer consultant and travel photographer. No background in climate science.

Another "prominent scientist" is listed as "Chemist Frank Britton" who wrote his condemnation "in a July 28, 2007 article in the Pasadena Star." Well. Letter to the editor/opinion piece, actually. At the end of his published piece (no longer available on the Star News web site but archived here) he lists his impressive credentials: Frank Britton has a degree in chemistry from Cal State L.A. He lives in Pasadena. Yessiree, an undergraduate degree in chemistry does a "prominent scientist" make. No background in climate science.

Another "prominent scientist" is a retired professor, electronics engineer "Dr. John Brignell is a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor of Northampton Engineering College." He's such a prominent scientist, he self-published both of his books on sale at Amazon.co.uk. No background in climate science.

Another "prominent scientist" is "Retired Air Force atmospheric scientist Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma" who published his anti-global warming tract on the website of the TWIN C I T I E S C R E A T I O N S C I E N C E A S S O C I A T I O N. Dr. Blick's current book on sale at Amazon is the Scientific Analysis of Genesis in which he concludes "concludes that scientific evidence supports the Genesis account of special creation." Oh, and he's also listed elsewhere as: Edward F. Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, Retired, University of Oklahoma. So he's an oilman and a creationist. Neat!

Another "prominent scientist" is Iowa State Climatologist Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State University. The 400 list cherry-picks some quotes to make him a skeptic. The same article the 400-list cherry picks also states, " 'The point that Taylor makes with his ozone story is not, "Hey people, the ozone hole is our fault, so global warming probably is, too," but rather, "Hey people, human beings have cooperated and stopped the ozone hole from getting worse, so we just might be able to stop global warming from getting worse, too.' " More clearly, he states his position on his website: The only responsible computation (to date to my knowledge) of the contribution people have made to climate change is 5% of the observed change. Bankers care about 5%, we should too.-- Elwynn. So basically, he neither denies AGW or that we should be taking action. And hey, what a coincidence--he has a background in climate science.

That's just me choosing a spot in the list and working some of the names.
Click to expand...

This big dumb list is simply a piece of blog-propanganda, intended to be circulated through email and never checked. Congratulations Dellusional Dude! You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker! I also know of some swampland in Florida you might find enticing...
 
Your bloggers are moving the political scene these days if you've noticed......

And BTW,you have 393 to go..... :lol:

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 ac­ceptance. ... 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," Winterhalter said.

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 and scientist 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."

# # #

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists.
Click to expand...

Not one damned credible scientist around when you need one....

Bite the dust space cadet. :lol:

"Skepticism is the first step towards truth."
 
delldude said:
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )
Click to expand...
Is there a particular reason that you are hiding these links? Is that because you are embarrassed of the sources that you have plagiarized? For the record, you verbatim copied The Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

Here are some excerpts from a rebuttal:
...it is worth providing a bit of context for this latest speech. Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims about the science of climate change. He previously gave a speech on the senate floor in July 2003 on "The Science of Climate Change" in which he stated that "catastrophic global warming is a hoax" and made a rather substantial number of false claims about the science. In fact, Senator John McCain ® of Arizona subsequently provided two climate scientists mentioned specifically by Inhofe, Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University (whom Inhofe referred to as "the father and promoter of the catastrophic global warming fearmongers") and Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the opportunity to respond to several of these false assertions in the Senate record–see the account provided in the article "Earth Last" by science journalist Chris Mooney. In this speech, Inhofe repeated many of the standard contrarian arguments challenging the mainstream, consensus view of the climate research community that the activity of human beings now has had a discernable impact on global climate and that this warming is likely to continue as anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase. Most of these arguments are debunked on the pages of RealClimate. Inhofe, for example, once again promoted each of the "myths" we have documented about the "Hockey Stick" reconstruction of past temperature changes, citing contrarian criticisms that have since been thoroughly discredited.
Click to expand...
 
Veritas said:
Is there a particular reason that you are hiding these links? Is that because you are embarrassed of the sources that you have plagiarized?
Click to expand...

Veritas...

I think that is what it actually looks like on the US Senate Committee on Envioronment and Public Works website!
 
Gilding the Lily said:
I think that is what it actually looks like on the US Senate Committee on Envioronment and Public Works website!
Click to expand...
Correction, it is from the The Inhofe EPW Press Blog which is posted on the Senate's committee's site and was authored by Marc Morano (see my earlier post). It is not the official policy of the Senate committee or any senator other than Inhofe.

It just goes to prove that Dell(usional) Dude is incapable of thinking for himself. Next, he will post from Senator Inhofe's "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism".
 
Veritas said:
Correction, it is from the The Inhofe EPW Press Blog which is posted on the Senate's committee's site and was authored by Marc Morano (see my earlier post). It is not the official policy of the Senate committee or any senator other than Inhofe.

It just goes to prove that Dell(usional) Dude is incapable of thinking for himself.
Click to expand...


No correction necessary. When did I say it was authored by the senate committee? I simply said it was ON the senate site.... and it IS. I was just rebutting your assertion that he was "hiding" links. I am not suggesting it is policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top