45 Scientists on list of '500 with Documented Doubts' Say F-You to Global Warming Deniers | EarthFirst

Heartland and Hudson are a pair of dirty front operations for tobacco, petrochemicals and oil. Both do a lot of spin for agribusiness and Monsanto. I'm really happy to find the seed thank you this is a wonderful find!! We may be due for another article on identifying the sources' resource$$!

I see stories about this often, yet the MSM continues to mislead, there is no controversy, global warming exists.

45 sounds about like the right percentage of waffles that are afraid of losing grants. If anything the earth is in a period of steady cooling, we are headed towards a new ice age. We are in a period of minor solar activity and we're already seeing the cycle return. There is no global warming, just hysteria.

45 sounds about like the right percentage of waffles that are afraid of losing grants.

I want to know where I can get in on this flood of free money, I'm in the wrong business!

Wheel

First of all, you need to use the right terminology. No one is denying that the globe has warmed in the last few decades. The controversy is about whether that warming is human caused (anthropogenic) or the result of natural variation.

Please at least use the proper terminology so that an intelligent debate can be had.

I am stating categorically that the globe has most certainly NOT warmed over the past few decades.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc1MzdjOWEwMWUyNGMwYzkxMjMzZWIzMjE5NDc3MGQ=

"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously." Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."

His views were debunked by a climate scientist in the same newspaper a few days later.[3]

LOL

We're all climate scientists on this bus...

I think it would be much harder to prove cause and effect (and therefore liability and damages) in the case of global warming. Scientists can't even make theit case effectively to the public and policymakers without being undermined, imagine trying to prove it in a ocurt of law.

I'm thinking something like this:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_denial and maybe even http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_denial_denial

:)

True, you can make an argument in support, or denial of anything.

The Ostrich Brigades? Their heads are so deeply buried in the sand, they can't hear the news.

Interesting in that the current warming has only been going on since the 70's, which is about 30 years. Since I have no connection to the website that you are talking about nor do any of the climate scientist that I know of, your rant is actually not pertinent to the truth.

What was discussed in that refereed paper that you so cavalierly dismissed is that the models that are relied upon by those such as yourself to forecast global temperatures 100 years in the future have so far failed to provide any match to the climate over the last 18 years of their existence. Indeed there is a growing divergence between the models and the known data and the response of the scientists is that they need bigger computers.

This is what you want to bet the future of civilization on?

this paper about how the models don't match the data for climate.

The only firm conclusion in this paper is that there is a large year-to-year variation in the data presented. Noisy data proves neither yay nor nay. What that says is either better data or better modeling is needed. Or that the large year-to-year variation itself is a symptom of a system that is badly out of balance.

All it takes is one scientist with the data that refutes the consensus, to make the whole thing fall apart. That is what science is all about.

Really? All it takes is one? How about someone like Immanuel Velikovsky? Raymond Bernard? Jan Schon? Fleischmann and Pons?

Really? All it takes is one? How about someone like Immanuel Velikovsky? Raymond Bernard? Jan Schon? Fleischmann and Pons?

Data my friend not suppositions. It is interesting that mainstream science is now validating some of the data from Velikosvsky, just not in the manner that he thought. There is a growing stream of data, a consensus mind you, that a comet or asteroid hit the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,000 years ago, which had a hand in the extinction of the large North American mammals such as Mammoths, saber toothed cats, and others. Velikovsky thought for some bizarre reason that it was Venus and Mars interacting with the Earth but at least some of his data is playing into the much more plausible thesis that an asteroid/comet hit is what caused the Younger Dryas cold period. Now this may be not ultimately upheld but so far the confirmatory data is still coming in.

Again, data rules, it is the interpretation by humans that is the problem.

Large year to year variation a symptom of a system out of balance? History quite conclusively shows that on the Earth that is is episodes where things are not changing that is the exception to the rule, especially over the last half million to million years.

As for the data in the paper. I guess being published in Geophysical Letters is not enough for you.

data rules, it is the interpretation by humans that is the problem.

Point well taken, yet this is a sword that cuts both ways.

History quite conclusively shows that on the Earth that is is episodes where things are not changing that is the exception to the rule,

Nor is that in question. However, what is the article's conclusion about the amount of variation in the climatic cycle? Have the authors looked further back to see if human influence alters not just the mean but the deviation? Does not more energy in any oscillatory system require larger amplitude oscillations -- in this case, colder winters and hotter summers?

I guess being published in Geophysical Letters is not enough for you.

If publication alone was sufficient, then Fleischmann and Pons' 1989 cold fusion article should qualify them for the Nobel Prize.

Nor is that in question. However, what is the article's conclusion about the amount of variation in the climatic cycle? Have the authors looked further back to see if human influence alters not just the mean but the deviation? Does not more energy in any oscillatory system require larger amplitude oscillations -- in this case, colder winters and hotter summers?

Lots of words, but little indication that you understand what those words mean in the physics sense.

If the energy of the system increases, it increases. That means warmer summers and winters as the supposed reason is CO2 which increases the absorption of infrared radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth. This is what warming is. Your suppositions at least have to have a basis in the physics involved. At this time there has been a reduction in solar irradiance of about 2 watts per square meters since the year 2001. This is now an extended period of over a year. The above are two facts based in physics.

What is at issue is how the amount of the increase in the partial pressure of CO2 increases by the (amount that we have measured over the past 50 years) absorption of infrared radiation. The fundamental physics involved say very little and also that water vapor absorbs 95% of all of the infrared energy absorbed by the atmosphere. This is why on a cloudy humid night temperatures don't go down as much and on a clear dry night it is much colder than on the cloudy night. This is also why on a cloudy day that it is cooler than on a clear day as the clouds reflect most of the incoming sunlight while on a clear day the Earth directly receives the radiation which warms the Earth.

This is all fundamental physics, no big words needed.

little indication that you understand what those words mean

Let's NOT escalate this to another 'you this' vs. 'you that' battle; those have become so prevalent, so pointless, and so boring here.

If the energy of the system increases, it increases.

In an oscillating system, the amplitude of oscillations increases as energy increases; the equilibrium position does not. Is this a valid model for annual weather cycles? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

a reduction in solar irradiance of about 2 watts per square meters since the year 2001.

And yet we continue to see 'hottest year on record'. Of course, you have claimed that to be nothing but myth on other threads.

water vapor absorbs 95% of all of the infrared energy absorbed by the atmosphere.

So you are questioning the contribution of greenhouse gases (C02, methane, etc) other than water vapor, to global atmospheric/oceanic warming? Yes, water vapor has a large role, as your diurnal examples illustrate. But The climatic effects of water vapour recognizes the role of C02:

it is the apparent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the period of industrialization that is causing so much concern. It turns out that typical abundances of carbon dioxide are sufficient to make most of its absorption bands relatively opaque. Because the strong absorption bands are saturated, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases its absorptions logarithmically rather than linearly

In an oscillating system, the amplitude of oscillations increases as energy increases; the equilibrium position does not. Is this a valid model for annual weather cycles? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

The increase in CO2 is not an oscillating system. There are many oscillations in nature but that is not what is being discussed. CO2 has been increasing roughly on a linear scale and therefore the climate should be heating on a scale that matches in some form the rise in CO2. Hint, it is not.

And yet we continue to see 'hottest year on record'. Of course, you have claimed that to be nothing but myth on other threads.

Please elaborate on these records, since the Y2K correction that was found by the climateaudit.org team. 1998 is not even the record year in the 20th century. 1934 still is. Therefore your thesis crumbles unless you resort to some form of Mike Mann hockey stick.

Because the strong absorption bands are saturated, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases its absorptions logarithmically rather than linearly

This is simply wrong. The physics does not support this.

ACtually that is a pretty good paper. There are many gems in there. Here is one.

It is clear that the absorption of radiation by water vapour determines many characteristics of our atmosphere. While we would not try to provoke any worldwide movement that was aimed at suppressing water emissions, it would seem that the climatic role of water does not receive the general attention it deserves.

Good paper, the big problem is claiming that CO2 is 26% of all infrared absorption, especially when they admit a very poor level of knowledge about water vapor.

It is also good to see people actually include the Quantum Mechanics rather than relying on statistics as is the case in most climate models. They are at least moving in the right direction.

spaceguy, Think about year to year data like a fuzzy TV picture. the farther back (aka the longer period of time you observer) you go the picture is easier to see and understand.

Space Guy,

Why are glaciers receding? Why is permafrost melting in the Arctic Circle? Why is the Arctic ice cap thinning? Why is the Antarctic ice shelf breaking apart into island size chunks?

With the rapid industrialization of previously agriculture based continental economies, i.e. Asia, the Indian sub-continent, will carbon dioxide and various other gases associated with the consumption of hydrocarbons remain flat, or increase?

Is there an increase or decrease of forest acreage that would trap carbon dioxide emissions within organic tissues?

Finally, do you see any clear response from the current Administration to credibly reduce the carbon footprint of the continental United States?

In 11.9,

ACtually that is a pretty good paper.

In 11.8, the same paper was "simply wrong." Perhaps the Institute of Physics should exercise tighter editorial control?

The increase in CO2 is not an oscillating system.

Didn't say that it was -- however, diurnal and annual temperature variations, which some seem to think equate to 'climate' are. Hence the straw man argument of 'its cold outside' meaning 'global cooling'.

daniel

I did not say that the paper was wrong. I pulled out a single piece of it and said that it was wrong. That is what science is all about, corrections and new data.

Didn't say that it was -- however, diurnal and annual temperature variations, which some seem to think equate to 'climate' are. Hence the straw man argument of 'its cold outside' meaning 'global cooling'.

No but that was your implication. Now you try a new dodge. This is what you said:

In an oscillating system, the amplitude of oscillations increases as energy increases; the equilibrium position does not. Is this a valid model for annual weather cycles? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

By definition, the thesis of anthropogenic global warming is that the equilibrium position is shifting. No one competent in the sciences is saying that the CO2 induced equilibrium shift will increase the amplitude of the day/night or seasonal temperature variation. There are those who say that anthropogenic global warming will bring more summer hurricanes but even that has been shown to not be the case. That is why I questioned the use of the terms and whether or not you understood them.

Now you try a new dodge.

Dodge? Why is it necessary to use this kind of subjective language? Here's what science is about: objective, respectful debate. As I and others have said elsewhere, keep it civil or keep it to yourself.

No one competent in the sciences is saying that the CO2 induced equilibrium shift will increase the amplitude of the day/night or seasonal temperature variation

No one competent in the sciences? Wow, global warming is not a problem, but global generalization sure is!

Daniel until you can argue in even a consistent manner there is no profit in continuing this discussion.

If you don't understand the basic premise behind anthropogenic global warming then I can't help you. How about going and reading about the subject for about six months and then we can talk.

Are you suggesting that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have nothing to do with global warming? Are you suggesting that pre-industrial ice core samples are an acceptable template for an analysis of current environmental conditions? Did Neanderthals drive Humvees?

How about giving me the exact quantum mechanical equations that govern the increase in absorption by CO2 in the atmosphere.

When you can do that then we might have something to talk about.

What I am saying is that CO2 is a minor effect (5%) in comparison to water vapor and clouds. There is also CH4, N2O, and other minor absorbers but water vapor far away is the biggest effect.

You're hiding behind equations. You still have not given an opinion as to whether the current Administration is doing anything about greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is a green house gas? Are you serious?

You are deliberately avoiding the contribution of fossil fuels and deforestation to the current environmental conditions. Reducing this discussion into a mid-term exam is sophist
excuse.

Discuss meaningful policy, not naked denial.

If you have no understanding of the science how can you make an intelligent contribution to the discussion. I don't care whether or not Bush is doing anything about CO2, which is a weak greenhouse gas. Tell you what, lets get rid of the water vapor in the atmosphere and that will really cool the climate!

Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas and if you do not understand that then you are not even on the playing field.

Well, carbon dioxide gas may be the weakest greenhouse gas on Earth for now, what about later, when all the hydrocarbon fuels have been expended? You continue to deny that these emmissions are on the rise and will continue to do so if unchecked.

And yes, I am certainly on the playing field.

That is not what the alarmists are talking about. We have already used approximately half the oil in the world and it has only raised the CO2 level by less than 40%. Without oil we are not going to maintain our civilization so we will be shifting to the hydrogen economy faster than what people think. We need to be moving toward fusion energy and the hydrogen economy as fast as possible.

Your Car on Pot; Or; Ecology & Cannabis Hemp: Is the Grass Really Greener?

I don't care whether or not Bush is doing anything about CO2, which is a weak greenhouse gas.

CO2 may be a weak greenhouse gas compared to others, but that's not the issue. First of all, anything in large quantities can cause damage whether it's weak or not. Second of all, we are emitting so much that it's causing other green house gases to warm the earth even farther. Even if you want to say that CO2 has a negligible effect, it has affect northern latitudes enough that lakes in Canada are warming up and emitting A LOT of methane, which is quite a strong greenhouse gas.

CO2 is not necessarily the MAIN cause but it is causing a chain reaction that we won't be able to stop if we don't caught emissions.

CO2 may be a weak greenhouse gas compared to others, but that's not the issue.

Then the argument that you are making is in direct contravention to the last 20 years of hysteria on the subject.

As for the amount of CO2, increasing the concentration from 0.280% to 0.385% is still a very very small fraction of the atmosphere.

As for methane, its concentrations leveled off in the 1990's and until this last month there were no increases in it. So CO2 is not driving that either.

The chain reaction theory relies on a chain of events that have been shown to not link together.

Then the argument that you are making is in direct contravention to the last 20 years of hysteria on the subject.

I never said I agreed with every theory about it that has come up.

I think you're whole argument that CO2 is not warming the Earth is really a moot point. There are too many other negative effects that have been proven beyond a doubt for you to focus on the one that is a maybe. Pollution is bad, bottom-line. For you to say that we need to keep pumping tons of CO2 into the air since we're not actually warming up the planet is to ignore a host of other problems (acid rain, asthma, etc) that is just frankly irresponsible.

CO2 is a fertilizer and without it you and I would be dead. It has been shown that in the last 50 years vegetation vigor has increased a lot due to the increase in partial pressure of CO2. This is a good thing.

You may be making this argument but that is not what the seeded article is saying, nor Al Gore or anyone else on that bandwagon.

CO2 has nothing to do with Acid rain nor asthma.

Ever since I came here to the vine I have been promoting alternative energy for much more practical reasons. We need to quit sending hundreds of billions of dollars of our national wealth out of the country each year to nations that don't like us and who are tying to suck us dry of money.

@!$%# is a fertilizer but I don't want it in my air.

Ever since I came here to the vine I have been promoting alternative energy for much more practical reasons. We need to quit sending hundreds of billions of dollars of our national wealth out of the country each year to nations that don't like us and who are tying to suck us dry of money.

If that's the case, then I suppose it's not worth it to argue on our reasons for supporting alternative energy.

Jc

That may be the case. I have argued this from the beginning here. It does not matter that the motivation that you have is diametrically opposed to my motivation, as long as we agree on the end result.

This is modern bi-partisanship!

:)

Dano, I have a come back for you, but I am just going to smile and nod.

:)

If you have no understanding of the science how can you make an intelligent contribution to the discussion.

Spaceguy, You make a bunch of really good arguments about CO2 and back them up. You obviously know your stuff. But the above satement is a bit rude especially when the post and the discussion are really about reputable scientists who have been included on a list on which they don't. You may well know the science (and you've made me do some thinking about that), but anyone can contribute to a discussion. The thing that gets me is how we have divided this thing up into balck and white arguments, either for or against with both sides arguing that the other side is politicizing it.

#12.15 Watching the thread, I'd guess this stems from frustration.

Tbone,

What is the frustration? CO2 or Methane... We probably just don't need to pump a bunch of @!$%# into the air along with what gets naturally pumped, and we probably don't need to pump a bunch of @!$%# into water supplies. I understand that there are those who are more informed than I who can argue about this or that not being bad for the atmoshpere, environment, etc., but is anybody arguing that it is a good idea to pump a @!$%#load of CO2 into the atmosphere. Why are people so against the idea of being a little friendlier to our planet that they would incorporate these scientists names on a list claiming that they take a stance that they don't take?

NewD

When people start stringing together words that have no real connection to the arguments related to CO2, and then go further and exhibit a complete misunderstanding of the arguments that are legitimate on the subject (both pro and con), one does tend to get a bit dismissive of the perpetrator of such arguments.

Even Jcpas, who would violently disagree with me on 90% of the cause of the problems, and I can agree on a solution that achieves both of our goals, which is a better world for us and our posterity.

That is something valuable.

#12.17 - nobody said anything about a green/not-green philosophy...this is about the cause and affects of AGW. I wish people would stop assuming that just because someone questions Al Gore's "truths" they are in cahoots with big oil or want to rape mother earth. This is an unfair and wholly inaccurate assumption about myself and many others in this thread.

Once again Tbone, I was referring to the article seeded here. The people that produce a list of scientists who are against global warming clearly are making a black and white argument. They clearly are not appreciative of the scientific process and discussion. Are you one of the people that produced the list? If not, then we are clearly having a simple misunderstanding involving my intent. I apologize if my post was taken the wrong way.

Roy Spencer at NASA Marshall was threatened by the Clinton administration. He left and then told them they were fools for believing in the hysteria of global warming.

:)

npat1 - seriously - google these keywords

wikipedia tabletop global warming revision

Let us know what you find.

Space guy,

Specifically how was Roy Spencer at NASA Marshall was threatened by the Clinton administration?

TBone,

In doing a Google search I didn't find any evidence of scientists having been silenced on climate change via supervisory disclinary actions (suspensions, removals from government service).

Did I miss some things?

npat

In contrast to you, when he was asked to change his findings to suit Vice President Gore and found data that disputed what Gore wanted, he resigned and then went to a venue where he could then present his findings in a manner consistent with what the data found.

This is the mistake that you made. You should have resigned and then crowed from the hills but you decided to buck what the people who wrote your check told you to do. That is your problem.

That's your opinion. I had other things besides my views about global warming to consider - like my being close to retirement & not wanting to forfeit health and financial benefits for my family after my having 29 years of service with NWS.

npat

I understand that. You could have just shut up until your retirement and then gone for it but you did not. Spencer gave up his civil service retirement in order to speak his mind.

In doing a Google search I didn't find any evidence of scientists having been silenced on climate change via supervisory disclinary actions (suspensions, removals from government service).

You did not discover the saga of TableTop? Look it up, every time someone would modify wikipedia to include specific world class scientists speaking against AGW, someone named "tabletop" would edit them away. If this is not silencing, what is?

BTW - npat, space guy, all - this is a great read, thank you and please keep writing. I'd really like to know more about the NWS as it pertains to this thread.

Spencer spoke his mind on what he thought was true but what he said was false. I spoke my mind on what I thought was true and what I said was true.

Wow.

So you have zero doubt in this regard?

space guy - npat1

Can you please give me a context of just WTF you're talking about?

T

Long running discussion. Npat worships at the altar of James Hansen a global warming alarmist from the Goddard Institute. I tend to agree with Dr. John Christy of the Center for global hydrology. James Hansen is an astrophysicist by training and Dr. Christy (and his counterpart Dr. Roy Spencer) are both PhD level training climatologists.

Npat was fired from the government for disobeying orders to not call a press conference to talk about global warming. Dr. Spencer quit NASA after he was pressured by Al Gore to promote global warming.

Npat was fired from the government for disobeying orders to not call a press conference to talk about global warming. Dr. Spencer quit NASA after he was pressured by Al Gore to promote global warming.

space guy - thank you for the clarification and, as aunk says, serious hetep and respect to you both.