Town Square

Post a New Topic

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud

Original post made by Jarred, Midtown, on Apr 22, 2008

Interesting new book confirms what is now pretty obvious...

Web Link

Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth?

Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)

Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.

Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.

This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.

From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

Comments (38)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Palo Verde Mother
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 22, 2008 at 8:56 pm

The overwhelming majority of scientists back the global warming findings. Way to much attention has been paid to a tiny minority of scientists in denial.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ol' Lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2008 at 7:01 am

Well done, Jarred. Will get it.

Palo Verde Mother: Science is not a democracy. It is based on...science...not political or religious belief. ( or it should be).

Most scientists are not disputing that the earth warms and cools, ..that is fact.

The dispute is around the effect of people on climate change.

Ask yourself the following question, why do most CLIMATE SCIENTISTS dismiss man-made global warming as an issue? A biologist or geologist buying into it is like a PhD in Education endorsing a particular medical procedure. Irrelevant. Wouldn't you look to other PHYSICIANS for a second opinion, not simply PhDs who call themselves Doctor?

Open your mind. The original signers of the UN petition from years ago are abandoning the ship in the droves in embarrassment as it becomes obvious that there is virtually nothing we have done and nothing we can do to affect climate. That is simply man-made hubris.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2008 at 7:13 am

Palo Verde Mom: You HAVE heard that there were 11 inaccuracies ( to put it kindly) that the English court system found in Inconvenient Truth, thereby nullifying its sole use in the school system as science, and relegating it to propoganda that needed to be balanced out with scientific inquiry?

In fact, there are much more that are under severe doubt but most scientists, but that is another thread.

The latest point that happened is that last Friday the story broke on ABC, ..or was it NBC?..in any case, one of the most vocal weatherman supporters of "Inconvenient Truth" broke the following story. He suddenly realized that the iceberg calving in the movie looked exactly like the iceberg calving in the movie released 2 years earlier called "The day after tomorrow". Come to find out, that while Gore is talking about flying 700 miles over the iceberg one would see this iceberg calving, the film is actually all computer generated. It didn't happen. It was another lie in the name of propoganda.

Ask yourself, if the scientific foolishness of this propoganda piece isn't enough to convince you that something is wrong, isn't the fact that yet again a flat-out lie a clue that Gore has an agenda other than reality?

What about the movie company that gave him the right to use that scene? Hmmm..complete silence on that for 2 years..hmm...could there be a concerted effort to fool ignorant masses in order to advance a socialist agenda?

The answer is ..yes...

Ask yourself. Why is every solution based in more taxes, less freedom, less trust of the individual?

Ask yourself...Why has the USA, who didn't sign the Kyoto protocol in protest of losing independence ( remember our founding), done a BETTER job of lowering its emissions VOLUNTARILY, than 13 of the 15 who signed the Kyoto? Even while our economy was growing faster than the signers of the treaty?

Do not give up your individual freedoms to "government", who are simply elected politicians, usually lawyers, who know nothing about anything except law and who live to make more law.

Don't give up our independence as a nation, ever.

Think about it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 23, 2008 at 8:12 am

Do a cost-benefit analysis.

If human activity is increasing global warming and we do nothing, the planet becomes increasingly uninhabitable. Most mass migrations, starvation and genocide.

If human activity isn't increasing global warming and we do cap greenhouse gases, it costs a little more and we have a cleaner planet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Barney Morgan
a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2008 at 8:57 am

"If human activity isn't increasing global warming and we do cap greenhouse gases, it costs a little more and we have a cleaner planet."

It is difficult to imagine anyone in a greater state of denial than this person.

If we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gasses that some climate change alarmists say we need, it will require much more than driving Priuses and switching to compact fluorescent. Carbon emission reductions on the scale of 30 to 50% worldwide are not possible without major adjustments in western lifestyles, and in living standards. That this is happening at a time when China, India and other countries are rapidly increasing their energy usage only compounds the problem: they are not going to want to remain poor.

There is no easy technological fix for this on the horizon. Wind, solar and even nuclear aren't going to make up for the loss of carbon fuel in the next 20-30 years.

I don't know if global warming is as big a problem as some say it is. But Perspective has his/her head in the sand about the cost of doing something about it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57 am

"Ask yourself the following question, why do most CLIMATE SCIENTISTS dismiss man-made global warming as an issue?"

MOST climate scientists dismiss...? Please prove that statement, OL. Then we have:

"A biologist or geologist buying into it is like a PhD in Education endorsing a particular medical procedure. Irrelevant."

Then we must diss any deniers on this forum who are not climate scientists. And get a load of the quals of this denier from the kickoff post on this thread: "Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute"

Petards, anyone?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The real truth
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2008 at 11:34 am

Dear Palo Verde Mother:

CO2 Is NOT a Pollutant!
And if you think so then you should stop breathing.

That way you can save the planet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 23, 2008 at 1:03 pm

To get an idea about the company that Solomon's book is keeping, take a look at the trash that its publisher puts out there.
Web Link

It's one nutcase diatribe after another - practically a laughingstock among thinking people.

'nuf said...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Here is a superb starting point for anyone wishing to move beyond these blogospheric frolics and seriously analyze the issue: Web Link

WARNING: This website contains material from the techno-scientific establishment that brought you radio, penicillin, TV, jet airplanes, hip replacements, electricity, computers, rockets, automobiles, brain surgery, satellites, and cell phones. Visitors assume all risks to their ignorance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Hey, Mike/Ehrlich, The libLudMalthusians have the schools and both parties, so you begrudge us grownups a few publications beyond your reach? Your side may win - you have succeeded in tripling energy cost, doubling food costs and selling us out to Sharia. Pity.
Better hide the tumbrils from the day when the people finally get wise to you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Global warming a hoax
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 23, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Paul from your esteemed web site:

I quote, "Thousands of stations around the world were turning out daily numbers, but these represented many different standards and degrees of reliability — a disorderly, almost indigestible mess."

So since these people you trust do not trust the data except when cherry picked to match their hypothesis. (Real Science, eh?) Seem to me this is not science this is the snake charmer curing the ill with hype and taking their tax money in the process.

Tell me Paul do you trust this weather station?
Web Link

or how about this one?
Web Link
The mold sure adds to the data value, don't you think so?

Global warming is the hoax of the 21st century.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 23, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I didn't promise Better Homes and Gardens.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 24, 2008 at 4:21 am

My initia suspicion of the warmie program was when they failed/refused to openly demonstrate calibration against known conditions, an absolute requirement for any predictivre mechanism. The second reason was "Urban heat island correction factor", a conglomeration of fudge factors that would get a junior engineer sent to the sales department.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 24, 2008 at 8:22 am

"...they failed/refused to openly demonstrate calibration against known conditions, an absolute requirement for any predictivre mechanism."

That's what the liberals said about Reaganomics, and look how wrong they were, right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lynn Paterson
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Apr 24, 2008 at 8:25 am

If those photos represent the type of sources for temperature data the whole notion of warming is flawed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06 am

"If those photos represent the type of sources for temperature data the whole notion of warming is flawed."

As I said, don't expect Better Homes and Gardens. Science is seldom pretty. It gets the best data as it can, weighs them, and draws inferences.

The next time you drive over the GG Bridge, remember the engineers who designed it could not precisely analyze its structure. The next time you board an airplane, remind yourself that the equations describing the air flow around its wings and control surfaces cannot be fully solved (There's a million dollar prize waiting for the first person who can.)

If you bet your life on engineering approximations you do not/cannot understand, why are you so worked up about global warming science which you also cannot comprehend?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Well, it is obvious that the man-made global warming, if not global warming in general, has lost in the efforts to increase government control of mankind.

The clue is that now global starvation of a million people is the apopolyptic story of the time. Don't forget, this apocalypse came about from man's attempt to be "environmentally friendly"..denying genetically engineered foods to nations and buying up food to turn into fuel, a process which pumps more CO2 and pollutants into the air than Gasoline does.

well done, leftists!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm

"well done, leftists!"

That's just dumb. There has been bi-artisan support for biofuels, with big corporations pushing the hardest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D. Pizzuro
a resident of Green Acres
on Apr 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Global warming is an illusion propagated by people who wish to control. These prople understand nothing not even the slightest fact that pertains to the reality of life. These self anointed messiahs waddle along the path knowing the price of everything except the value of life itself.

Leave me alone and stop indoctrinating my children with your mad faux science.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D. Pizzuro
a resident of Green Acres
on Apr 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm

-- There has been bi-artisan support for biofuels, with big corporations pushing the hardest.

Yes, because the political machine believes this mad faux science. They are just going after the purse of the tax payer like all vultures do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dave
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 24, 2008 at 4:36 pm

There is a bigger myth than global warming. That myth is that there are only two sides to this issue: the Al Gore/tree hugger camp and the denier/skeptic camp. Certainly there are plenty of Al Gore tree huggers, and certainly there are some (perhaps delusional) individuals who refuse to accept that the greenhouse effect is real.

In between there is a wide range of perspectives. In fact, this should be the take-away message from this very book ("The Deniers").
Having not read the book, I don't really know whether the authors stress this point, but judging from the subtitle of the book, I am guessing that their principle thesis is something else.

I do know something about the arguments made by some of the people cited based on other writings of theirs or about them. Apart from those who deny the physics of the greenhouse effect, who are simply wrong, there are those portrayed in the book who admit that greenhouse gases warm the planet but that the effect is smaller than recent forcing by the sun, such as Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen, but most of the evidence doesn't support that view. There are also those who agree that industrial emissions lead to a warming effect, but that the Earth's response to the initial warming is a compensating cooling, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen. However, his ideas have been extensively explored by the scientific community and so far found to be inconsistent with the observed climate system.

Then there are those who fully accept the consensus view of the scientific community regarding the attribution of recent warming to the buildup of greenhouse gases, but dispute some of the specific consequences that have been suggested, such as Dr. Christopher Landsea. He does not dispute global warming, but argues that the expected increase in hurricane intensities will be minor.

And finally, there are those who fully accept the consensus view of the scientific community regarding the attribution of recent warming to the buildup of greenhouse gases, but argue on economic grounds that the solutions offered so far are inappropriate or inadequate, such as Dr. Richard Tol.

So in this sense, the idea that there is a consensus is perhaps debatable. Nevertheless, the physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood. The vast array of scientific studies related to the consequences of our increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are usually consistent with the view that recent observed warming can be mostly attributed to this rise in greenhouse gases. In any scientific area, there will be those who dispute the mainstream view. The important question is not whether or not every scientist is in complete agreement. The truly important question is whether the mainstream scientific view portrays a risk that is sufficient to warrant policy action. Reasonable people can disagree on this, but the science suggests that the risk of significant negative consequences from climate change is growing, not receding.

There is an additional myth conveyed in the subtitle of the book: the notion that these writers have faced persecution. Most of the actual practicing climate scientists listed above and otherwise considered the major skeptics of climate change are successful scientists. Freeman Dyson won the the Nobel prize in physics. The fact that everybody ignores his thoughts about global warming merely reflects that fact that most people think he's wrong. That's not persecution. Richard Lindzen is a full professor with an endowed chair at MIT. He is considered one of the foremost authorities on the dynamics of the stratosphere and is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society. He likes to claim that his grant proposals get rejected because he disputes the mainstream scientific view. In fact he has made that charge in several Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces. However, he neglects to mention that his ideas about climate change have not stood up to the intense scrutiny they have received from the scientific community. It is unreasonable to expect a federal agency with a limited budget to continue funding a line of inquiry that has been demonstrated by independent scientific study to be wrong or likely wrong. This is not persecution, it is simply how the scientific funding process works. Every scientist is subject to this same rule regardless of their position on global warming, and Lindzen knows it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm

The intense scrutiny of the scientific community? Sure, I can see all those scientists returning their fat grants and getting real jobs when their house of shoddy finally collapses like the NASA touted "Ozone hole over Kennebunkport" or the NASA and New York Times, Parade Magazine/et al and Sagan with their silly Nuclear Winter.
As for engineering mistakes, you don't have to cross the GG bridge, it was reinforced several times after the example of Galloping Gertie and Loma Prieta. Scientists, whoring after the latest panic driven grant, seem to have no correction factor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 24, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Dave, you make the point that there are a spectrum of positions on the AGW issue. However, the spectrum is mostly across the range of possible rationales for not believing in AGW.

In order to believe that AGW is a serious problem, you must believe all of the following:
1. The earth is getting warmer
2. Human actitivies are responsible for the increase in temperature
3. The increase in temperature due to human activities will cause serious problems

In fact, there are very good arguments against each of the three assertions. The most likely case is that all three are false.

The fact that various people choose one or the other of the three statements as the weakest of the three, and hence direct their attacks on that part of the AGW proposition, in no way strengthens the AGW argument. It just reinforces what a dubious proposition AGW is.

Suppose you say "all humans have green hair". There are billions of counterexamples. Does that mean that each person who disputes your proposition, and can cite a counterexample, falls along a "different point on the spectrum", if their counterexamples are different? No, they all think you are full of it, but for different and equally valid reasons. So it is with AGW.

Also, your comments regarding the "myth" of persecution of scientists who dispute AGW are laughable. The only reasons most of the scientists cited in the book can afford to go on record against AGW is either that they are established stars in the climate field (eg, Richard Linzen) or they work in a different field and hence are somewhat immune from having funding cut off.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 24, 2008 at 9:28 pm

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Web Link

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

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. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)



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."



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."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Jarred, Every large enterprise has its crackpots - looks like you've just listen a few dozen ofo them. Stop wasting your breath; save us all the Co2; the globe is warming up, and we are spewing pollution into the environment.

In fact, I don't give a damn whether human pollution is helping to warm the globe (as supported by the VAST majority of scientists). In fact, even if it was shown, conclusively, that AGW was not fully, or even partially, responsible for the globe heating up, I would STILL want to see strict controls put on pollution spewing corporations, and other limits put on the introduction of poisonous garbage into everything we eat, wear, drive, etc. etc.

Stop wasting our time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2008 at 7:09 am

Mike, sorry....it is hard to find a new religion when the old one proves false. It is a painful process, but I am sure you will find the next one equally gratifying.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dana R.
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 25, 2008 at 8:29 am

Mikey take your religion here.

There seems to be a bigger problem here after all we all live on the same rock.

Web Link





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2008 at 8:39 am

Mike, thanks for coming out as an Ehrlich Malthusian peoplehater. You paraphrase an earlier "environmentalist" who said that he opposed cheap, plentiful energy because it would make it too easy for the population to grow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Mike: The core issue in this climate warming controversy is Al Gore's connection with it. Bushies despise him for getting more votes than their boy in the 2000 election, and they're totally apoplectic that he still has far more popular appeal. But I expect they'd flip-flop immediately if Gore just changed his political affiliation.

One has to understand their plight. Bush totally sawed off their limb when he admitted the fact of global warming. Their support's gone and there's nowhere to go but down.

The facts of global warming are not subject to debate. All this sound and fury signify nothing; it will run its course. So let's all party. The kids can clean up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 25, 2008 at 12:23 pm

"In fact, even if it was shown, conclusively, that AGW was not fully, or even partially, responsible for the globe heating up, I would STILL want to see strict controls put on pollution spewing corporations, and other limits put on the introduction of poisonous garbage into everything we eat, wear, drive, etc. etc."

Mike, you finally came clean! Must make you feel better.

Your strange combination of Stalin and Ludd probably describes the mindset of the 'green' designers of the future, providing that you are an example. Pretty scary stuff.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Bush didn't saw off any limbs of science when he "admitted" the fact of global warming. Again, it is a fact that our climate warms and cools through the ages.

It is also a fact that politicians will bend on something not very important in order to try to fool the masses into following them elsewhere.

Bush was being a politician, trying to pull a McCain...keep following!

Eventually, though, the Bushes and McCains are going to wake up and realize that they have lost the support of their base, and the Democrats who claimed to support them will abandon them to the even further left candidates. Republicans will not gain back power until they return to conservative principles. Until then, they are just Democrats, and we all know it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Palo Alto Funnies
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2008 at 12:30 pm

"The facts of global warming are not subject to debate."

ROFLMAO

You are looking fine in those rose colored glasses and paper hat.

How's the fit there Paul? Seems you may need a larger size.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Aha! A conehat fell for it. What further proof of the failure of education do we need?

I'll say it again, as simply as possible. Debate does not change facts.

But I did not say what the facts in this case might be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 25, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Dana,
And you know what's causing China's pollution? Your continued dollars supporting their products. Made in China...with the American flag stamped on top of it. Americans buy tons of Chinese made products. Keep your wallets open to Made in China and you get continued pollution.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 25, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Mike, you've beclowned yourself once again, and this time in record time. Yes, I'm afraid I do listen to "crackpots" such as Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, and other eminent scientists who've forgotten more about science than you'll ever know.

Why don't you stop fantasizing that there is a "concensus" about AGW and listen to actual scientists who understand the very things that seem to confuse you so much, such as hypotheses, data, and the notion of cause and effect? Oh, but I've forgotten that you are crouched in the fetal position, hands over ears, singing "LA LA LA" at the top of your lungs to block out the multitude of facts that disprove your Warmy fantasies. Looks like you will have to find a better scare story to argue for state control over all aspects of life and suppression of developing countries -- AGW is getting to be a laughingstock.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Jarred,

Nobody here is going to be happy about global warming, as it advances. What's unfortunate about the non-believers is that they don't know what science is all about.

Of course there's no *consensus* on global warming! That's a GOOD thing. That's SCIENCE.

That said, the *weight* of evidence favors AGW, to a large degree. Deny that, at your peril.

Science, like climate, isn't a linear undertaking. "Reality" is often counterintuitive (look at quantum mechanics).

So, as those who say that warming is bunk, or that humans don't play a role in warming, whine about how right they are, we continue to experience the effects of warming. Sure, we might have a "cool" year or three, but the trend is undeniably going in one direction.

Ignorance is bliss. So, you should be a pretty happy fellow.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 26, 2008 at 6:15 am

I love it..."sure, we might have a cool year or three"...Mike, you are hilarious.

I am waiting for a return of the pictures of an ice-bound USA...AGAIN...and then we can scare our youth into imagining how they can manage to move to the Equator to survive...AGAIN

IN the meantime, we will use the cooling temperatures to predict an apocalypse and demand more money from the people,to brainwash our children, and try to seize world power through the UN..AGAIN.

Try to learn historyy from before you were 20. You will find many examples of where the "weight of evidence" had to go on a diet in the face of reality.

BTW, for that matter, since most voters now have been born since Carter, just study what happened under Carter, with a Democrat Congress..Obama is a reincarnated CArter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 26, 2008 at 7:41 am

Mike, all your many copies of Time, Newsweek, and The Enquirer, while doubtless heavy (at least for you), do not constitute "weight of evidence". Likewise, computer simulations with coefficients chosen just so to generate desired answers are not "evidence". And a wandering confederacy of dunces with a few idealogues at the head of the pack setting the direction do not constitute a "concensus".

Feel free to crawl back inside the dailykos chat room and resume your rich fantasy life, in which your parroting drone of discredited scare stories transfixes the sheep that inhabit the collectivist clown club.

To your credit, your "arguments" fill a much-needed void.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,433 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,689 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,623 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,337 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 870 views