17,200 scientists say no to man made global warming

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Well, it says that increases in CO2 produce many beneficial effects, which is literally true.

Watch out, Kallend interprets that as ....
"We should increase our CO2 output."

According to your trusted source:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO, will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in C02 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface,, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the C02 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

It seems that he strongly believes GW is due to human intervention, but thinks it a good thing.

BTW, over 90% of submissions to Nature are rejected. Just because some whiny dude has his letter rejected is no reason to complain on the internet about it. Jeez - I've had letters to the Chicago Tribune rejected!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Do I believe human activity is responsible for *some* global warming? Absolutely. I believe the jury is still out on human activity being the *MAJOR* reason for global warming.

What are the other causes of global warming?

Termites - they have small farts but there are a hell of a lot of them around!!

[Red_Skydiver 0]

The fact they are a "scientist" doesn't mean they know anything about climatology. I know a heck of a lot of scientists (used to work in a university) and they are all highly specialised. My wife is a biochemist but knows F. all about climatology but she could vote on this right...? And you still believe what they say even though it's not their specialised field?

Fact 1. The climate is constantly changing, always has been and always will be.

Fact 2. Since industrialisation there have been significant changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e. changes faster than we would otherwise expect to see without mans industrial input) and this seems to correlate with global temperature changes.

You only have to look at the figures..... of course the assumptions could be wrong but what other explanation is there for the correlation?

[billvon 3,006]

>Watch out, Kallend interprets that as "We should increase our CO2 output."

He _does_ advocate that in other publications of his. CO2 is part of our natural environment, and it plays a role in the normal photosynthetic cycle that's critical to life on earth. I fear many people misunderstand that, and think that what's good in small quantities is very, very good in large quantities, which is not always true.

Consider arsenic. We all have detectable levels of arsenic in us, and some research points to it being beneficial at very low concentrations. Doesn't mean that much more is much better - even if we see some benefits at slightly increased concentrations.

[GravityJunky 0]

Are they on Bush's or Big Blue's payroll?

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

[Zenister 0]

your children will NEVER see a tiger in the wild...

but sure go ahead and believe that humans are not having a significant impact on the planet AS A SYSTEM. This fundamental fact applies to nearly every 'natural process'. Without Humanity the world would look vastly different...

some people live with blinders on, unable to see the broader effects of their decisions...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[1969912 0]

Quote

The fact they are a "scientist" doesn't mean they know anything about climatology. I know a heck of a lot of scientists (used to work in a university) and they are all highly specialised. My wife is a biochemist but knows F. all about climatology but she could vote on this right...? And you still believe what they say even though it's not their specialised field?

That also applies to the scientists who claim that "global warming" is caused by anthropogenic CO2 generation. I'd bet your wife has a very strong opinion about the issue, even without knowing "F. all about climatology."

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[speedy 0]

Quote

your children will NEVER see a tiger in the wild...

and I will never see a live mammoth. All those dinosaurs, gone forever and only a few fossils left

I will never understand why people think humans are not "natural". If we are not part of nature and are some weird anomally in the evolution of life, maybe we have duty to exterminate ourselves.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[speedy 0]

Quote

what other explanation is there for the correlation?

It depends what your are trying to correlate. Al Gores 20 foot sea rise, or the real impact of CO2 on atmospheric warming.
They thought they had it the correlation figured out and then they discovered the oceans actually cooled between 2003 and 2005.



The infamous "smoking gun," from bombshell to bomb...

In Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications Hansen, et al, state: Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.

The associated media release is entitled "Earth’s Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming"

When that paper was written the model output was a fair wiggle-fit with Willis (2004) and Levitus (2004).

So, Hansen's model is dumping heat into the oceans at roughly 0.8 Wm-2 and the bulk ocean heat rise mid-1993 - mid-2003 sort of matched that -- if only the world would remain constant and conform to the models we'd have this "global warming" thing sorted. Like all happy accidents, however, this good thing came to an end, too.

Lyman et al (2006), using updated data from the same source, show that the period 2003-2005 involves a sudden ocean cooling at a rate of -1.0 ± 0.3 Wm-2 over the period, which means Hansen's model is calculating wrongly in both magnitude and sign. No one expected this loss of one-fifth of the heat stored in the ocean since 1955 and no model predicted it. Its cause is unclear but we appear to be witnessing Earth dumping heat to space via the atmosphere.

Now Hansen's model has three years of data (to date) where it's incorrectly dumping heat into the oceans at a rate of >0.8 Wm-2 when it should have been removing it at -1.0 Wm-2, making net error of +1.8 Wm-2 over more than 70% of the planet -- call it excess global forcing of at least 1.25 Wm-2 for that period.

Lyman et al. go so far as to state: Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). Think about that for a moment -- that's just 0.1 - 0.56 Wm-2.

[JackC 0]

Junkscience.com is a quack site. Steven J. Milloy is a journalist not a scientist and he's paid by Exxonmobil and tobacco giant Philip Morris. He claims dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all "scares" and "scams". Not that you'll take any notice.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

your children will NEVER see a tiger in the wild...

and I will never see a live mammoth. All those dinosaurs, gone forever and only a few fossils left

I will never understand why people think humans are not "natural". If we are not part of nature and are some weird anomally in the evolution of life, maybe we have duty to exterminate ourselves.

an please tell me what humanity had to do with the extinction of the mammoth? i can provide quite a long list of what humanity has done to cause the extinction of an obscene number of species..including the Tiger

it has nothing to do with 'natural' or 'unnatural' it has to do with living in a manner that destroys more than it creates or maintains.. Humanity has far more power to affect its environment (and therefore the environment of every other form of life on the planet) than any other

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

what other explanation is there for the correlation?

It depends what your are trying to correlate. Al Gores 20 foot sea rise, or the real impact of CO2 on atmospheric warming.
They thought they had it the correlation figured out and then they discovered the oceans actually cooled between 2003 and 2005.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

what other explanation is there for the correlation?

It depends what your are trying to correlate. Al Gores 20 foot sea rise, or the real impact of CO2 on atmospheric warming.
They thought they had it the correlation figured out and then they discovered the oceans actually cooled between 2003 and 2005.

Make up you mind what story you're supporting. The OISM director states explicitly that GW is due to human intervention, but he thinks it a good thing. Are you disagreeing with him or agreeing with him?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

what other explanation is there for the correlation?

It depends what your are trying to correlate. Al Gores 20 foot sea rise, or the real impact of CO2 on atmospheric warming.
They thought they had it the correlation figured out and then they discovered the oceans actually cooled between 2003 and 2005.

Make up you mind what story you're supporting. The OISM director states explicitly that GW is due to human intervention, but he thinks it a good thing. Are you disagreeing with him or agreeing with him?

SO you think that a 20 ft sea level rise is what we'll have in 2100 ?

Seems like Al Gores hype is working.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Do you or do you not agree with OISM that GW is real, humans cause it, and it's a good thing? Very simple question.

For someone of your qualifications your inability to count is amazing. Far from a very simple question, that is indeed three questions.

Question 1. Is GW real.
Answer: The evidence around tends to suggest that overall since 1776 out planet is a little bit warmer.

Question 2. Have humans caused it.
Answer: Maybe we have contibuted to the warming slightly. The level of our contribution is so small we would have difficulty measuring it.

Question 3. is it a good thing.
Answer: This is a bit biased but based on my location on our planet, Germany, I would prefer the average temperatures we have now to those of the "little ice age". As our contribution to the warming is only minimal, it can not be judged as good or bad. It really makes no difference.

So now I have answered your three questions, will you answer mine?
1. Do you really think a 20ft sea level rise will happen by 2100?
2. Do you really think the human race will make any significant cuts in CO2 emissions during the next 20 years?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

[
1. Do you really think a 20ft sea level rise will happen by 2100?
2. Do you really think the human race will make any significant cuts in CO2 emissions during the next 20 years?

1. No - we will take action before 2100 to prevent it's being that much
2. No - the time frame will be more like 50 years.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Do you or do you not agree with OISM that GW is real, humans cause it, and it's a good thing? Very simple question.

For someone of your qualifications your inability to count is amazing. Far from a very simple question, that is indeed three questions.

?

Bzzzt - I asked if you agreed with the OISM position on these issues - that's ONE question

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

It is happening, humans are not the cause, and I don't know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

This just in;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

This too.

Quote

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

This too.
***Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

A book doesn't "CONFIRM" anything - it just expresses the authors' opinion in a non-peer-reviewed format.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Well hells bells, if Waxman said it it must be carved in stone

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And here is the most discusting tactic there is.

Sen. Inhofe: Climate 'Hysteria' Targeting Kids


Move over, Chicken Little. A children's book planned for release in September is an attempt to "fill the minds of children with 'sky-is-falling' global warming hysteria," a Republican senator warns.


The producer of former Vice President Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" is hard at work on a new project: writing a book to help school kids "understand why global warming happens."


Scholastic, Inc. - one of the world's largest publishers of children's books, including the "Harry Potter" series - announced Monday that its Orchard Books imprint "has acquired world rights to 'The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming' by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon, scheduled for publication in September 2007."


"Written for ages 8 and up, 'The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming' is the comprehensive resource young readers can look to for understanding why global warming happens and how we can work together to stop it," Scholastic said.


"Irreverent and entertaining, and packed with essential facts and suggestions on how to effect change, 'Down to Earth' offers a message of hope," it said in a release.


Scholastic called the book "important" and noted it was co-authored by David, a producer of Gore's documentary.


According to the publisher, David has also produced an HBO documentary on global warming entitled "Too Hot Not to Handle" and served as the founder of the Stop Global Warming Virtual March, with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of the Natural Resources Defense Council.


As Cybercast News Service previously reported, David - the wife of comedian Larry David - was instrumental in convincing Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes to attend a lecture by Gore and then air an hour-long special entitled "The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming" on the Fox News Channel last November.


Gordon, David's co-author of the children's guide, is described by Scholastic as "an active environmentalist and a former award-winning advertising copywriter who now pursues children's writing full-time."


In an effort to "underscore the company's ongoing commitment to responsible environmental stewardship," text pages in the new book "will be printed on paper that contains 100 percent post-consumer waste fiber that is FSC [Forest Stewardship Council]-certified, using soy inks," the company noted.


Along with announcing the new book, Scholastic said in its release that "the company is joining with the Rainforest Alliance to further strengthen the company's sustainable paper procurement practices, establishing a policy that will have goals for the use of FSC-certified papers and that will reinforce the company's commitment to post-consumer waste (PCW) fiber."


"As a company committed to educating and caring for children and ensuring a safe environment in which they can learn and grow, Scholastic has a long record of environmentally sound policies and practices," said Beth Ford, senior vice president of Global Operations and IT for the company.


"We look forward to working with the Rainforest Alliance to make even greater strides in protecting the environment today and for future generations," Ford said.


According to the company website, "Scholastic is the largest publisher and distributor of children's books in the world" and has "over $2 billion in revenues."


"Through its unparalleled distribution businesses, Scholastic Trade, Scholastic Book Clubs, Scholastic At Home and Scholastic Book Fairs, the company reaches over 35 million children, 40 million parents and nearly every school in the U.S.," the website notes.

"Scholastic publishes more than 500 new hardcover, paperback and novelty books each year," including the Harry Potter series, Captain Underpants, Clifford The Big Red Dog and I Spy.


Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, told Cybercast News Service Monday that David's book isn't the first to try and tell children about global warming.

Last year, the United Nations Environment Program published "Tore and the Town on Thin Ice," a children's book about a young boy in an Arctic village who loses a dog sled race because he crashes through thinning ice supposedly caused by manmade "greenhouse gas" emissions.


Inhofe said he also found it interesting that Scholastic made the announcement regarding David's book just before the United Nations is set to release a major study on climate change.


"It appears that Laurie David is joining the United Nations in aiming its global warming propaganda at children," the senator said.


"Having failed for nearly three decades to convince the American people and their leaders to jump on the global warming alarmism bandwagon, David and the U.N. are trying to fill the minds of children with 'sky-is-falling' global warming hysteria," Inhofe said.


© CNS News.com. All rights reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

And here is the most discusting tactic there is.

Sen. Inhofe: Climate 'Hysteria' Targeting Kids


.

Well Hell's bells - if Inhofe said it it must be carved in stone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,006]

You left off the source, no doubt through a simple oversight. Remember, facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. To help out readers, here's the source info at the bottom of the article that was accidentally omitted:

CONTACT: Grace Terzian of Hudson Institute

You can find out more about this conservative think tank here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute