More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming

[Flashermac]

The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

 

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

 

 

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

 

â??I am a skepticâ?¦Global warming has become a new religion.â? - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

 

â??Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite franklyâ?¦.As a scientist I remain skeptical.â? - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called â??among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.â?Â

 

Warming fears are the â??worst scientific scandal in the historyâ?¦When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.â? - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

 

â??The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnâ??t listen to others. It doesnâ??t have open mindsâ?¦ I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,â? - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

 

The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.â? - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

 

â??It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who donâ??t buy into anthropogenic global warming.â? - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

 

â??Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.â? â?? . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

 

â??After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.â? - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

 

â??For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

 

...

 

 

Link

[Faustian]

Great, so can someone please tell us what's really going on? Ya know...the scientists...who are supposed to know this shit.

 

So we've all been conned. Great.

 

I'd still like someone to explain the retreating glaciers and ice caps, but I guess that's just a coincidence.

[ThaiHome]

...I'd still like someone to explain the retreating glaciers and ice caps, but I guess that's just a coincidence.

 

Uh, the weather changed?

TH

[Faustian]

Globally?

[Tiger Moth]

I'd still like someone to explain the retreating glaciers and ice caps, but I guess that's just a coincidence.

 

It has been explained by reports shown in articles presented here:http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

 

The ice mass is huge and has increased. Parts are expanding and others are diminishing. The IPCC and media only hype the parts that are dimishing.

 

You have asked the same question on this topic previously and I am not the only one who has previously posted this link.

 

Stop being lazy and asking the same question while not taking advantage of material that gives the answers.

 

Can anyone seriously question that the sun is a very significant factor in temperatures on the earth? Yet the IPCC model doesn't include solar activity. Seem rational to you?

 

There is another organization, now with over 33,000 scientists, who oppose the IPCC.

 

"The sky is falling" makes an exciting headline - doesn't mean its true.

[Faustian]

It's beginning to look like a childish squabble...2 opposing factions, both deeply entrenched, but somebody is very wrong, would be nice if we were allowed to have the truth...as a member of the public, who is going to suffer the consequences of someone else's fuck ups, I'd like someone to come forth with a clue.

 

My Ph.D. is better than your Ph.D. naa naaaa na na naaaaa.

 

Qualifications at dawn....

 

 

 

[Faustian]

I'd still like someone to explain the retreating glaciers and ice caps, but I guess that's just a coincidence.

 

It has been explained by reports shown in articles presented here:http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

 

The ice mass is huge and has increased. Parts are expanding and others are diminishing. The IPCC and media only hype the parts that are dimishing.

 

You have asked the same question on this topic previously and I am not the only one who has previously posted this link.

 

Stop being lazy and asking the same question while not taking advantage of material that gives the answers.

 

Can anyone seriously question that the sun is a very significant factor in temperatures on the earth? Yet the IPCC model doesn't include solar activity. Seem rational to you?

 

There is another organization, now with over 33,000 scientists, who oppose the IPCC.

 

"The sky is falling" makes an exciting headline - doesn't mean its true.

 

Not being lazy, both polar caps are receding, NASA data. Greenlands ice cap is shrinking ever more rapidly. Don't know of any other ice caps, maybe you could educate me as to their whereabouts? Glaciers around the world are receding. There's photographic evidence of this everywhere.

 

Solar activity is at its lowest point on record and has been for the last 2 years. Prior to this it was declining, which is the normal cycle for the sun. All the while ice loss has increased. This is not opinion, this is fact. You can see the satellite images for yourself.

 

I'm as open minded as anyone can be and would really appreciate a definitive answer, but it seems none will be forthcoming. Taking a stand as a sceptic or believer seems to be foolish. No one seems to have a clue. I merely present what I know to be reported and easy to see.

 

[Tiger Moth]

Read "States of Fear" by Michael Crichton (unfortunately recently died). It is a novel but he was a genius and a scientist. He spent 2 years doing research in preparation for the novel and includes a bibliography of the material at the back of the book.

 

Also, at the back of he book is his personal opinion.

 

I felt his main point in the entirety was that the subject is currently beyond human understanding - keep in mind that there have been ice ages and warm periods before man ever got out of the caves.

 

The IPCC conclusions are based on a computer model. Have you ever written a computer model? I have. The results, predictions by the model, are based upon the elements put into the model and the relationships between the elements - all determined by humans. Leave out one essential element, misjudge the relationships between the elements and your results are incorrect.

 

A sophisticated econometric model, such as that done by Wharton University, contains thousands of elements. Surely, a model of the climate would need to contain many more. What do you think the chances are that the IPCC model includes all the relevant elements and weights the relationship between the elements correctly? And, once again, consider that they have left out the influence of the sun - surely a minor factor in temperature on the earth.

[rogueyam]

So we've all been conned. Great.

 

Got it in one. Nice work.

[Tiger Moth]

I'm as open minded as anyone can be and would really appreciate a definitive answer, but it seems none will be forthcoming. Taking a stand as a sceptic or believer seems to be foolish.

 

I agree entirely. Taking a stand as a sceptic or believer is foolish. That in my opinion was basically Crichton's message. And, I agree.

 

So, if this is the case, spending $billions in an attempt to fix a situation which is currently beyond our understanding is foolish.

 

By the way, Crichton gives a detailed example, using Yellowstone Park in the US as an example, of good intentioned experts intervening with nature (thousands of acres of land and thousands of species - but, surely less complex than the climate). The results of these well intentioned efforts were "unexpected" and disasterous.

 

"Taking a stand as a sceptic or believer seems to be foolish.". And so, the IPCC and their recommendations are worse than a blind person throwing a dart in a room full of dart boards attempting to hit the bullseye on one particular dartboard. In the meantime, their recommendations will cost many $billions and may have disasterous unintended consequences (like corn being used for fuel resulting in many humans starving to death).