|
|
COMMENTS:
Oh, and I voted that my personal views do skew my overall opinion about global warming. However, that being said, I've also studied extensively on the issue, so while in the beginning it was more about my suspicions, seems more and more the science supports my views. Here are more findings...
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement...................
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.
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.
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.
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher 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 ‘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."
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."
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times 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 Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (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.
Let me condense this for you:
A prominent Global Warming supporter from the Washington Post now admits that Global Warming is more about fear mongering than science...
If you double the so called 'greenhouse gas' output by men it would still not have the perceived affect on the temperature of the earth.
The environment is not like a thermostat that goes up and down based on what we do as humans.
The media is ignoring the natural variation in our climate.
Scientists supporting Global Warming as a theory are now flat out ignoring science presented by reputable sources going to the contrary of man made global warming, which is NOT how science should work.
Scientists who still support the theory of Global Warming may not be doing so from an unbiased standpoint but more so from the standpoint that they are going to lose money if the theory is proven false.
The idea that the slight rise in carbon dioxide is harmful to the earths climate is absurd.
Global warming, natural or otherwise, is likely not even happening.
The SUN is the major contributing factor to the global temperate climate, not man.
AND, the most damning evidence of all... only 52 scientists contributed to the United Nations IPCC survey, the same survey that is mentioned as supposedly being backed by 'thousands' of scientists. That has now been proven to be totally false.
So, what do you have to say about this? Yes, I copy pasted this, and sure, you can probably find one, maybe even two findings you may question based on whoever is backing the supposed finding, but how in the hell can you still claim any validity to Global Warming in the face of such overwhelming proof of the false nature of the issue?
And Jyl, especially for you, the ball is in your court. Bring it.
I personally believe that global warming is true and that nations should take action to protect the environment.
However I do not believe that people who question global warming (such as yourself jappy) should be prohibited from voicing their views because it is contradictory to the science. In the UK science is being used to end political debate, and I strongly oppose that. If someone wishes to deny global warming as a myth than they have every right to do so, in my opinion science should encourage debate not end it. In the past the church would force opinion on the masses and burn ‘heretics’ who questioned their gospels, in modern day England, men who worked at a local industrial plant were set upon by dozens of environmental activists in balaclava’s, beaten black and blue and had to endure the torment of having their windows and cars bricked and graffiti sprayed on their walls denouncing them as rapists.
I myself have come under insults from users on this site for claiming that there is such a thing as a ‘radical green’. I have been accused of being a god-fearing religious zealot, having a dysfunctional brain and one user is even ashamed to be a member of the same species as me. I have done nothing to provoke these users other than to voice my own opinion on a subject matter, and because my opinion differs from theirs I have had to tolerate online abuse.
As I have already said I believe that global warming is a threat to our planet and that something should be done about it. Yet I also believe that groups like We Know Better Than You So Shut Your Fucking Mouths (WKBTYSSYFM) are a threat to democracy and freedom of speech and I value my individual liberties above everything else.
This is the ballot I made that provoked such strong reactions from certain users. The introduction is not my own writing, but that of the science columnist of The Guardian, a well-known liberal British broadsheet paper.
Ballot 119655.
Voted : My viewpoints are skewed by personal beliefs more than science.
And I am trying to correct my thinking along that line. It's just hard to do when it's harder to breathe every day.
Wish we could have added our own choices.
I recently read a book called 'The Medical Detectives', which contains a lot of the history of medicine. In one fascinating chapter about the emergence of aspirin -- did you know there were incredible medical advances in Greco-Roman times? -- the author relates that all medical science came to a screeching halt for about a thousand years after the emergence of Christianity as the dominating religion. This quote from St. Augustine says it all:
"All illness is hereby to be ascribed to demons."
by mojo on Sat Dec 22, 07 5:47am
[+]
(p.s. just an analogy)
by mojo on Sat Dec 22, 07 5:57am
[+]
Sorry, meant to leave choices, didn't realize I hadn't. I often wonder though if the majority of people who support the theory that we are destroying the earth's climate live in cities, where you get a more polluted (literally) sense of what the climate is like?
As far as religion hindering science, I completely agree. Change scares the establishment, because a lot of times the so called establishment stands to lose a LOT through scientific advancement. I am of the opinion that we as humans are intelligent enough to enable new forms of energy but that our dependence on oil hinders these advancements. This isn't a party issue either, the amount of money that oil puts into the economy is staggering, imagine suddenly people being able to dump a cup of water into a device that runs their house's electricity for a week using the hydrogen in that water? Imagine if this technology was suddenly available. You think the establishment stands to benefit from this in any way? Not a chance. This is a HUGE hinderance to any change in our energy dependency on fossil fuels, more so than any political party or personal viewpoints.
In what way does it force the masses into conforming. what views are these in particular?
Put another way.
What possible benefit would it give to the person forcing these views upon you.
Surely using less energy is a good thing no matter what ideology you ascribe too. same as recycling. Would you rather have more bottles or more landfills?
Seems to me the only issue here jappy is you trying to make us conform to your views.
You would have us believe that global warming is a conspiracy. If so the people who concocted it must be very old by now. historically speaking people who say things are harmless are usually the biggest exploiters.
What I dont understand is whats in it for you jappy? Do you own a chemical company or are you just a useful idiot (to use an inter_regnum phrase)
My reasoning is painfully simple.
Big business stand to lose more money if global warming is proven.
Big business does not like "extremist views"
Big business controls the public viewing.
Big business will PAY scientists to find what they tell them too, and to skewing data to support that end.
You always start by making a reasonable point jappy. and then you seek to vilify people to engender support. Al gore believing otherwise does not make him a stupid man. (I dont know anything about al gore, but in this its just an opinion). No more than believing in global warming makes you a sheep.
Someone could have made this ballot in reverse.
I personally believe that we are damaging the environment and it may be more sensible to take precautions. SCience is biased towards the result it needs so im unlikely to give it much creedence. Unless ofc it supports my view.
Safer to say my personal views skew ALL my thoughts about science. Much safer for the mind that way. So none of the choices above....
yeah, the same way there are historians that say that the holocaust never happened, if you look long enough you will find it.
while you may have researched the issue as best you can, but you may not have the education, science, or experience of most of the climatology experts. Listen to the best and the brightest, and not just some people who you feel that agrees with you, and see if there is a consensus.
suppose you and I go into a hermatically sealed room. I happen to have a massive flatulence problem, and you while trying not to breathe it in sitting way across the room, sooner or later begin to smell that odor.
we can pretend that the problem isnt' there, and try to move away from the source of the problem, sooner or later it will catch up with you, by then, the room will be so smelly you will be axing the wall trying to get out.
or convince me to take a few Beano(tm) now, the problem may go away, and perhaps we can both breathe.
Earth is an enclosed system, there's no debate about that.
Carbon Dioxide and planetary temperature, well, just look at Venus, check the composition of its atmos and the ambient temperature of that planet.
Al Gore, Stupid? Show me YOUR Nobel prize, and we'll talk.
by LCD on Sun Dec 23, 07 9:18pm
[+]
'we can pretend that the problem isnt' there'
Or we can form our own opinion, while You pretend that the problem is there.
I've said this all along, the whole global warming thing is all bollocks. But that doesn't fly with the hippy shits, does it? ;o)
"But that doesn't fly with the hippy shits,"
Sorry I dont speak bollocks. can you translate please?
These are not just 'my views', and I actually voted that my viewpoints are skewed by my personal beliefs, however I've taken a lot of time to study the science involved. 1/2 of one degree over 100 years time does not equal a warming trend in the global climate when 7 of 10 of the last centuries had a greater rate of temperate change. That's as simple as it gets folks.
You want to know why it bothers me? Because had Al Gore been made president there is no doubt in my mind he would have used his power to try to force through political means his viewpoints on the nation as a whole, and the sad thing is, a lot of you would just go with it because your personal beliefs fall right in line with his. That's not good.
Yes, jappy.... and OVER NINETY percent of scientists in the field totally and absolutely disagree with you. The evidence is out there. You only choose to listen to what supports your view. You listen to scientists whose research is funded by oil companies and others with vested interests. What you don't and won't do is listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists whose research in published in PEER REVIEWED journals of note (Unlike the bought and paid for scientists you listen to). I could post chart after to chart to prove you wrong but it would do no good.
You like to mock 9/11 conspiracy believers but with your asinine beliefs on this subject, you show that you are really NO DIFFERENT than the TIN FOIL HAT wearing 9/11 conspiracy nuts. You just believe absolute rubbish put forth by quacks of a different sort.
Catch the clue bus.
Sorry deniers: global warming is real. Bushie won't believe it, though, until his daddy's vacation mansion at Kennebunkport is under water.
|
|
