World’s Top Scientists: ‘Manmade Warming’ Is A Dangerous Lie

[Zan de Man]

So, w14, (not wtf) are you that author of the blog or did you simply lift the content wholesale and post it as your own?

[w14]

Zan,

have you seen my signature?

[parihaka]

Look to the sun

An experiment by Danish scientists offers convincing evidence linking global warming to an increase in cosmic radiation

Ian Douglas Clark, Financial Post Published: Thursday, October 12, 2006
Story Tools

Since Newton's inadvertent experiment with gravity beneath the apple tree, scientists have constrained their theories of how nature operates with the need for experimental evidence -- replicable measurements and quantifiable data -- as proof. While the evidence may sometimes prove the obvious, it may also completely change the accepted view of fundamental processes. Ptolemy's theory of the Earth-centred solar system involved impossibly intricate gyrations of the sun, moon and planets. Copernicus' celestial measurements and Galileo's telescope provided experimental observations of moons orbiting Jupiter and reversals in planetary motion to prove we have a sun-centred solar system.

The science of global climate change is no different, where a heated debate exists between two theories -- climate warming forced by CO2 from human activities (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) and natural warming by changes in the Sun's activity.

Last week, the Danish National Space Center released the results of an experiment that demonstrates how cosmic rays could influence natural warming. In so doing, it ruptured a bedrock of some in the AWG camp. As put by Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Center, "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [Our] experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research."

For decades now, the 20th-century increase in global temperature has been largely blamed on the rise in CO2 from human activities. And why not, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can trap infrared radiation and warm the atmosphere? The problem is that the rise in CO2 is not enough to account for this temperature rise. To compensate, the AGW theory assumes an amplification by water vapour of two to three times.

Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and accounts for as much as 95% of the natural greenhouse warming that keeps the Earth habitable. According to this theory, a minor amount of warming by CO2 triggers a larger increase in water vapour. Computer models incorporate this amplified forcing and extrapolate over the next 100 years to predict temperature increase of 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degreesC. Further extrapolation of climate feedbacks has produced the wild speculations of an overheated planet that have led to the catastrophic predictions of The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth.

Supporting the other side of the debate, there are remarkably strong correlations between measures of past solar activity and global temperature. For example, the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age, some 300 years ago, occurred when no sunspots were observed on the face of the sun. Moreover, the rise in temperature over the past 100 years occurred when the sun increased its output to its highest levels in the past 1,000 years.

The problem in this theory is that radiant heat from the more active sun is not enough to explain the rise in 20th-century temperatures. However, a change in solar activity affects more than the light the sun emits. It also changes the sun's magnetosphere that sweeps out past the Earth and partly shields us from the harmful high-energy cosmic radiation originating from supernovae deep in the Milky Way. The theory is that these cosmic rays affect our climate by ionizing particles and gases in our atmosphere. These ionized molecules act as nucleation points for water droplets and lead to the formation of clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space and have by far the greatest impact on the Earth's energy balance and climate. Changes in solar activity, then, have a second and more potent impact on our climate through changes in the cosmic ray flux and thus on cloudiness.
This brings us to the burden of scientific evidence in the climate debate. Until now, the evidence for both sides has relied essentially upon wiggle-matching -- how well the ups and downs in temperature over time match with the ups and downs of solar activity, or of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until now, both theories lacked experimental evidence.

The Danish discovery has changed this. Researchers led by the Space Centre's Henrik Svensmark published experimental evidence in the proceedings of the prestigious British Royal Society showing that high-energy cosmic rays do have the ability to ionize molecules in our atmosphere and nucleate clouds. Mr. Svensmark's team managed to reproduce the gases and chemistry of the lower atmosphere inside a chamber of seven cubic metres. Into this simulated atmosphere, they fired a beam of charged particles like the high-energy cosmic radiation that manages to penetrate the Earth's magnetic shielding. Their measurements of the charged particles they created and the rates of nucleation match with those required to have a measurable impact on climate. They provide experimental evidence to support the theory.

The Danes are not the only team to have sought experimental evidence for cosmic ray forcing of the climate. University of Ottawa researcher Jan Veizer and colleague Nir Shaviv use geology and meteorites to show a cosmic ray connection with climate over the past 600-million years. The research team at CERN, the EU's foremost centre for high-energy physics, announced last month that their new CLOUD experiments would test the theory of cloud formation by cosmic rays. NASA is also taking the solar connection more seriously. This past spring, two new satellites were launched to collect data on the link between cloud formation and climate. All this activity signals a recognition that the solar-cosmic ray-cloudiness connection must be taken seriously in climate research.

While these Danish experiments provide new evidence to support the theory of solar-forcing of climate change, the CO2 warming theory remains untested and unverified. Beyond wiggle-matching, no experimental evidence has been produced to show that an increase in CO2 can accelerate the water cycle and increase greenhouse warming with water vapour. In fact, ice core evidence from the past shows that it doesn't.

In the natural sciences, if you can't measure it, you can't prove it.

[parihaka]

Column - Handy ideas to make us green and mouldy

Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 08:38am


BY now you’ll be in a panic, wondering how to save yourself from the apocalypse to come.

After all, when the Profit of Doom, Al Gore, says global warming risks “ending all human civilisation” you’ll have figured it will take more than a few low-energy light bulbs to save us.

Too right, so I’ve collected the best and most original tips of many experts on how to slash the gases they say are killing the planet. Follow this advice and we’ll be, um . . . safe?

1. Get rid of humans.

Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson insists we “reduce human populations to fewer than one billion”.

2. Put a carbon tax on babies.

Prof Barry Walters, of the University of Western Australia, says families with more than, say, two children should be charged a carbon tax on their little gas emitters.

3. Cull babies.
Toni Vernelli, of green group PETA, says she killed her unborn child because of its potential emissions: “It would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.”

4. Sterilise us all.
Dr John Reid, a former Swinburne University academic, gave a lecture on ABC radio recommending we “put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system, and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile”.

5. Ban second children.

Says Melbourne University population guru Prof Short: “We need to develop a one-child family policy because we are the global warmers.”

6. Feed babies rats’ milk.

PETA campaigner Heather Mills, ex-wife of Paul McCartney, says cows’ burps are heating up the world and we should use milk from other animals: “Why don’t we try drinking rats’ milk and dogs’ milk?”

7. Eat kangaroo, not beef.

Greenpeace says kangaroos don’t belch like cows, so are greener and should be eaten first.

8. Shut industries.

Greens leader Bob Brown says we must scrap all coal-fired power stations and our $23 billion export trade in coal.

9. Wash less.

Says actor Cate Blanchett: “I have little races with myself, thinking: ‘Oh no, I’m not washing my hair, I only need a two-minute shower’.”

10. Sweat more.
The green-crusading editor of the (airconditioned) Age says we should turn off airconditioners in summer: “Our consumer society has long abandoned the fan or the cold bath as the way to keep summer at bay.”

11. Use human corpses as fertiliser.

Robert Larkins, founder of the Victorian Environment Defenders’ Office, wants gassy cremations banned and humans buried where trees can use their bodies for food.

12. Use coolies, not machines.

Climate Care is offering to offset emissions from jet travel by hiring poor Indians to use manual treadle pumps—once used in British prisons—rather than diesel pumps to pump irrigation water: “Sometimes the best source of renewable energy is the human body itself.”

13.Ban cars on alternate days.

Local pollster Hugh Mackay says “cars’ emissions are stealthily killing us” and we could “halve the fleet, at one stroke, by adopting the odds-and-evens number plate system”.

14. Use horses instead.

The French National Stud Organisation says horses are already replacing petrol-powered vehicles in 70 French towns, and should be used to pull school buses.

15. Stop flying.

Green author George Monbiot says flying is too gassy: “It is becoming morally unacceptable now to fly to go on holiday.”

16. Ban street lights.

Ivan Brooks, a mayor in Adelaide, says street lights should go off after midnight to save emissions.

17. Ban Christmas lights, too.
Spain’s Ecologistas and Accion environment groups says Christmas lights should be banned before Christmas day, to save energy.

18. Ban Hanukkah candles.
The Arkada green consulting firm is running a “Green Hanukkah” campaign asking Jews to use one less candle to “save the planet”.

19. End democracy.

Says green academic Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet: “When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. (Carbon rationing) has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”

I have more ideas, but you seem already to have gone green. Please remember, these people are just trying to save you from something we can only hope is worse.

But by the way, did you know the planet hasn’t warmed since 1998? I suspect this will come as a relief.

[spindok]

Nuclear power plants can be used to produce:

* Fresh water
* Hydrogen
* Oxygen
* Precious metals such as palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium
* Radioisotopes for medicine

(In fact, the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor, Ontario, for maintenance, has almost completely halted the global supply of radioactive isotopes used for diagnosing and treating thousands of patients with cancer and other diseases.)

The propaganda from the global warming lobby promotes a world where I must save energy, reduce my “carbon footprint.” This is a world which will devolve scientifically and technologically. It’s a world of slavery, where everything I do is taxed to “offset” my use of energy. It is a world where 3rd world countries are not permitted to develop, and where people continue to starve due to biofoolery. It is a world where the rich get richer by blowing bubbles. That's the world promoted by Al Gore who has only one agenda - keeping his pocket full of cash. (Well, he's also a racist, but lets not discuss that ...)

That part makes sense.

Any plan which depends on devolution of technology is bound to fail.

Someone asked me about my kids today. Yes I know these kids and they are not giving up what they have come to expect. It never occurs to them that their cell phones or Halo connection will just stop working because the power will run out.

They should not accept that. Let them build upon it.

So put the kids to work. Let them know that they need to find the path to the next level and they will either do it or fail. That is all the prior generation can do when our ideas have run out. Just give what you have and pass it on.

I have been through enough Armeggedons now

They will be OK.

Spindok

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by spindok

They will be OK.

Spindok

As a species we have certainly shown a remarkable ability to solve problems, whether real or perceived. I have absolute faith that we'll pass on a growing legacy of improvement that they too will add to.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by parihaka

As a species we have certainly shown a remarkable ability to solve problems, whether real or perceived. I have absolute faith that we'll pass on a growing legacy of improvement that they too will add to.

I hope you're right.

But our "legacy of improvement", is actually more like a 'legacy of destruction'. We pollute more every year, our seas are turning more and more acidic, we are using more fossil fuels without looking for alternatives, we are creating more nuclear waste that we cannot dispose of, and we are still fighting wars for resources.

Nevertheless, if the scientists can get sorted with Nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells and other renewable power sources then I'm sure that we won't end up killing ourselves.

[w14]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

Nevertheless, if the scientists can get sorted with Nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells and other renewable power sources then I'm sure that we won't end up killing ourselves.

Fusion: http://www.iter.org/

Fuel cell research is far enough along to be practical now. Honda are piloting their fuel cell powered car in one region of the US early next year.

This is where the research money should be going. Fission should only ever be a stop gap.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

Fusion: http://www.iter.org/

Fuel cell research is far enough along to be practical now. Honda are piloting their fuel cell powered car in one region of the US early next year.

This is where the research money should be going. Fission should only ever be a stop gap.

Yeah I saw the Honda Hydrogen fuel cell car on Top gear this week. Very impressive, especially after showing the latest U.S. Green car of the year.
http://energystandard.blogspot.com/2...r-of-year.html

I've been to the new tokamac reactor they're building in France, it's very impressive and hopefully should be able to sustain the required temperatures for more than the J.E.T.'s best of about 30secs at 100million degrees.

[w14]

David Cameron has said that the development of "green coal" will be a priority for a future Conservative government, according to the BBC today. Apparently, he plan's to have the "captured" CO2 pumped into empty North Sea oil and gas fields.

Again, the politicians get it completely wrong.

Carbon capture is a rubbish solution for so many reasons:

When coal is burned, the CO2 emitted is relatively dilute, making CO2 capture unrealistic. To solve this problem, the coal industry has come up with a new process called coal gasification. Water and oxygen are mixed with the coal to (chemically) create carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The hydrogen is used as the fuel source for electricity generation, and the carbon monoxide is converted to concentrated CO2. And here's the main reason this technology is nuts: around 25% of the energy produced is consumed just in keeping the plant operating.

For every tonne of coal consumed, 3.7 tonnes of CO2 is generated. It would be great if this CO2 could be pumped straight into the ground on-site. But Cameron is proposing pumping the CO2 out to the North Sea, so new pipelines are going to have to be laid, at what, £1m per mile or so?

Before the CO2 can be pumped underground, it has to be compressed into a liquid - a step that typically consumes a further 20% of the energy yielded by burning coal in the first place.

So that's 45% of the generating capacity of the power station used to deal with the CO2, so far. Good, eh?

The state of the captured CO2 must be closely monitored - its at such a high concentration that should it leak, it would poison the North Sea.

How is this better than nuclear power?

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by w14

David Cameron has said that the development of "green coal" will be a priority for a future Conservative government, according to the BBC today. Apparently, he plan's to have the "captured" CO2 pumped into empty North Sea oil and gas fields.

Again, the politicians get it completely wrong.

Carbon capture is a rubbish solution for so many reasons:

When coal is burned, the CO2 emitted is relatively dilute, making CO2 capture unrealistic. To solve this problem, the coal industry has come up with a new process called coal gasification. Water and oxygen are mixed with the coal to (chemically) create carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The hydrogen is used as the fuel source for electricity generation, and the carbon monoxide is converted to concentrated CO2. And here's the main reason this technology is nuts: around 25% of the energy produced is consumed just in keeping the plant operating.

For every tonne of coal consumed, 3.7 tonnes of CO2 is generated. It would be great if this CO2 could be pumped straight into the ground on-site. But Cameron is proposing pumping the CO2 out to the North Sea, so new pipelines are going to have to be laid, at what, £1m per mile or so?

Before the CO2 can be pumped underground, it has to be compressed into a liquid - a step that typically consumes a further 20% of the energy yielded by burning coal in the first place.

So that's 45% of the generating capacity of the power station used to deal with the CO2, so far. Good, eh?

The state of the captured CO2 must be closely monitored - its at such a high concentration that should it leak, it would poison the North Sea.

How is this better than nuclear power?

Agreed.

What's worse with Camerons plans is that the area of the North Sea that he is suggesting as a good location for the Carbon capture, is also the location of a huge Methane deposit that is already leaking.

It is, however, refreshing to hear politicians talking about doing something. I realsie it is just "Lip-service", but at least that's better than Bush, who wouldn't say anything to upset the big corps.

[w14]

Originally Posted by contracycle

Yes but your argument is based on shitty science. Give us your ALTERNATIVE proposals then.

Well if idiotic denialists

I have already stated my alternatives several times in this thread. Have you read it, or are you only here to make cheap insults?

[contracycle]

The only thing I see you advocate is nuclear. Is that it?

I put up an article a few months ago which pointed out that EVEN IF all the arguments in favour of nuclear in power are accepted without question (which they cannot be but we will leave that aside for now) we would then need top embark on a crash-building programme on a scale something like a full scale military mobilisation to get them up fast enough, which is pretty much saying it Ain't Gonna Happen.

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by Uplifter

I hope you're right.

But our "legacy of improvement", is actually more like a 'legacy of destruction'. We pollute more every year, our seas are turning more and more acidic, we are using more fossil fuels without looking for alternatives, we are creating more nuclear waste that we cannot dispose of, and we are still fighting wars for resources.

Nevertheless, if the scientists can get sorted with Nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells and other renewable power sources then I'm sure that we won't end up killing ourselves.

In the west we've had the historical advantage of dealing with the problems of pollution and destruction of local environments over time as they have happened, so we've had the luxury of learning from and correcting our mistakes.
The greatest danger we face at the moment is that by moving our industrial capacity to developing nations we've managed to cut the costs of production, but only by cutting the protections of environmental safety standards.
As a consequence all we've done is moved the pollution out of our own back yard and no longer have to pay the true costs of production in the short term, but will face far bigger problems in the future.
I fully expect that if we don't act now, we'll be facing a massive refugee problem in the future as large areas of the world become uninhabitable.
This is why, while I'm a skeptic about AGW, I support a lot of the issues that have been allied with that movement, such as decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and the research into truly cleaner and efficient technologies. As and when those technologies can be introduced, we can provide economic incentives for production houses such as China to introduce them.
We have one advantage at the moment: with the large increases in energy production due to the uncertainty over oil supply, the market is ripe for R & D into those new technologies.

[w14]

Originally Posted by contracycle

... we would then need top embark on a crash-building programme on a scale something like a full scale military mobilisation to get them up fast enough, which is pretty much saying it Ain't Gonna Happen.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what's necessary if the advocates of anthropomorphic climate change are correct? Do we not need exactly that kind of approach to deal with the issue?

If you had read the thread with care, you would have noticed that nuclear power is not "it." I'm arguing that the correct approach is to base the solution *around* nuclear power.

I'd like to see hydrogen powered road transport, maglev rail, separated passenger and freight rail, CargoCap goods delivery, further research into fusion, etc. I want to see the end of hydrocarbon based fuels completely - but for reasons of air quality and technological and economic advancement, rather than climate change.

Financing this kind of development, by the way, is easy. Currency issued and invested in these kind of infrastructure projects is non-inflationary, as opposed to the current central bank policy of issuing currency for the sole purpose of bailing out failed banks, which is highly inflationary. As I said earlier in the thread, this is exactly the approach taken in the 1930s by Roosevelt, and in the last few years by Putin. It works.

[parihaka]

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

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)

Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



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.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:


Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)


CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)


On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”



Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)



The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)



ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (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.



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 ac*ceptance. ... 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 University of Columbia 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