МАЙДАН - За вільну людину у вільній країні


Архіви Форумів Майдану

Докази підробки даних щодо глобального потепління(л,англ)

11/25/2009 | Sych

Відповіді

  • 2009.11.25 | Сергій Кабуд

    тут російською про це(л, блог Ілларіонова)

    http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/
  • 2009.11.26 | montrealais

    Re: Докази підробки даних щодо глобального потепління(л,англ)

    не займайтеся дурницями. Які вам потрібні ще докази?

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3054

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/melting-undermines-greenland-camp/

    наберіть greenland ice cap в google і отримаєте сотні різних лінків.
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
    • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

      ганьба росповсюджувачам дешевої кремлівської дези

      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
      • 2009.11.26 | montrealais

        Re: ганьба росповсюджувачам дешевої кремлівської дези

        слово "роЗповсюджувати" пишеться українською так (через з).

        як правило, дуже категоричні люди, що дозволяють собі висловлюватися подібним чином - малоосвічені і психічно неврівноважені люди.
        згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
        • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

          бачу ви не тільки дезу кремля можете ліпити а й грамотєй

          я у захваті

          чи ви дежслужбовець ?
          згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
          • 2009.11.26 | montrealais

            Re: бачу ви не тільки дезу кремля можете ліпити а й грамотей

            Ні, я просто в школі добре вчився. До речі, перший лінк:

            з домену nasa.gov

            Більше не буду витрачати час на цю порожню балаканину.
            згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
            • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

              переглянте вашу схильність до комуністичної пропаганди

              і почитайте вчених а не агітаторів газпрому з нюйорклсаймс
              з якої ви навели ганебну дезу,

              газети яка видається гомосеками доречі

              і яка у 1933 році публікувала Дюранті, кореспондента який запевняв що Голодомора не відбувається

              ви передруковуєте матеріали з сайту соучасників масового багатоміліоного геноциду українців

              це дуже гидко

              нічого особистого

              крім памяті вбитих мміліонів і планів тих самих уродів вбити ще міліони людей
              згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
              • 2009.11.26 | montrealais

                Re: переглянте вашу схильність до комуністичної пропаганди

                слухай, тезко, тобі потрібно лікуватися.
                згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
                • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

                  Ви не чули про участь нюйорктаймс в покриванні злочину Голодомор

                  згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
                  • 2009.11.26 | montrealais

                    Re: Ви не чули про участь нюйорктаймс в покриванні злочину Голод

                    якби ж то NY Times був єдиним джерелом інформації з цього приводу :) Що от тільки робити з фотографіями Кіліманджаро? І чому це кожного року снігу випадає все менше та менше?
                    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
                    • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

                      а що робити з тим що останні 2 роки були найхолодніші з 20ти?

                      цього літа я в Нюйорку жодного разу не включив кондіціонера

                      це НЕЧУВАНО тут.

                      Чесно кажучи про Кіліманджаро це я чую від Вас, а Ви 'від дяді' а 'дядя від тьоті' та й причин ми не знаємо і це там, далеко.

                      А тут : от реальні температури в Нюйорку я СВОЄЮ ШКІРОЮ відчуваю з 1988

                      плюс:

                      є купи наукових свідчень які повністтю протирічать легенді про те що со2 є причиною 'потепління'

                      Можете глянути в наведений в гілці звіт 400 вчених і це рік тому було

                      а зараз ще й нові факти відкрилися.

                      Якщо це потепління: я буду радий, бо по геологічному чи як це назвати графіку має починатися наступний льодовий період , то може це потепління трохи його загальмує хоча б на певний час.
                    • 2009.11.26 | Angry Orange

                      І знов розляглося кабудствованіє понад форумом...

                      Та киньте, колего, з ним взагалі сперечатися. Це ж відомий форумний псих, містській божевільний містечка New York ;). Живий приклад, як маріхуана впливає на неокріпший мозок (чи що там у нього замість). Щось недавна вякав про персональни наїзди на нього, але у самого головний стиль - образа опонентів. Його вже за це банили-банили, знов тут. Просто не звертайте уваги, як розумні люди роблять.

                      У того хлопа усі, хто з ним незгодні - гебісти. Вже і Daddy, i Sean, i сам Михайло Свистович :ouch: одержали таке "почесне" визнання. Так що Ви - в гарній компанії, не ображайтесь на хворого :crazy: Його мабуть, знов Нью-йоркські копи у буцегарні за "марьванну" тримали. Тепер ось випустили, а "дурі" не дали :(. Ось у нього і ломка важка.

                      А кліматичні зміни, об'єктивно, відбуваються. Тількі ось дуже складні питання, як швидко, і взагалі, з якої причини. Глобальне потепління було вже і до людської історії (льодовий період скінчився) і після середньовіччя (у Європі Північне море замерзало). І чому зараз крига там і сям тане, об'єктивної відповіді немає. Головним чином, тому що багато політики намішано. І дійсно, це ж які гроші можно "подєрібанити" лівим силам під таке святе діло! Зрозуміло, що гроші будуть швидко розпиляни і покрадені різними "лібералами" на усяки "спонсоршипі" та "гранти" (ну, кому, як не quebecois це знати! ;) ) Отже, усяка така демагогія навкруги насторожує...

                      А зміни - вони є, і завжди відбуваються, натуральним шляхом.
                      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
                      • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

                        відчуваю шо ти помідорчік маєш пунктік поговорити про мене a не

                        про потепління.


                        Далі, нижче риски- лише і персонально до помідорчіка. Не про потепління а про Кабуда Івановича і тіко для рецепієнта. Прошу панство не читати це.
                        -----------------------------------------------


























                        Angry Orange пише:
                        > Та киньте, колего, з ним взагалі сперечатися. Це ж відомий форумний псих, містській божевільний містечка New York ;).

                        це каже дегенерат з погонялом ПАМІДОРЧІК)))))) so pretty




                        >Живий приклад, як маріхуана впливає на неокріпший мозок (чи що там у нього замість)....
                        демонструєш ти дебіл. мабуть ти народився із жопи?



                        >Щось недавна вякав про персональни наїзди на нього, але у самого головний стиль - образа опонентів. Його вже за це банили-банили, знов тут. Просто не звертайте уваги, як розумні люди роблять.

                        втім ти помідорчік не можеш не раскатати в форумі , мабуть ти тітка?



                        >
                        > У того хлопа усі, хто з ним незгодні - гебісти. Вже і Daddy, i Sean, i сам Михайло Свистович :ouch: одержали таке "почесне" визнання. Так що Ви - в гарній компанії, не ображайтесь на хворого :crazy: Його мабуть, знов Нью-йоркські копи у буцегарні за "марьванну" тримали. Тепер ось випустили, а "дурі" не дали :(. Ось у нього і ломка важка.

                        наведени персонажи не 'в мене' а хрiн їх зна де. це шо, твоі родичі?

                        бачу моя гіпотеза шо твій папа підар і ти народжений з жопи- вже не гіпотеза. Ти бачив цих своіх родичів коли небудь? Знаєш чим вони займалися по життю? Ти зєнькі від гімна хоч раз на тиждень чистиш?


                        О нарешти про клімат!

                        >
                        > А кліматичні зміни, об'єктивно, відбуваються. Тількі ось дуже складні питання, як швидко, і взагалі, з якої причини. Глобальне потепління було вже і до людської історії (льодовий період скінчився) і після середньовіччя (у Європі Північне море замерзало). І чому зараз крига там і сям тане, об'єктивної відповіді немає. Головним чином, тому що багато політики намішано. І дійсно, це ж які гроші можно "подєрібанити" лівим силам під таке святе діло! Зрозуміло, що гроші будуть швидко розпиляни і покрадені різними "лібералами" на усяки "спонсоршипі" та "гранти" (ну, кому, як не quebecois це знати! ;) ) Отже, усяка така демагогія навкруги насторожує...
                        >
                        > А зміни - вони є, і завжди відбуваються, натуральним шляхом.


                        але тупенько, багатослівно і видно шо ти памідорчік звичайне жлобисько
                        жлобко та кугутко. З поддєрібана.

                        визнай що ти - держслужбовець
    • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

      звіт сенату США щодо дезінформації про потепління, 400 вчених(л

      http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport


      Senate Report - Senate Report

      [Contact: Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV -- Matthew Dempsey - Matthew_Dempsey@EPW.Senate.gov - U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)]

      Update: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 - Released: December 11, 2008 231 Page

      http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport



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

      Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
      Report Released on December 20, 2007

      U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
      UPDATE: Former Vice President Al Gore responds to Senate report within hours of release. (LINK)
      UPDATE 3/06/08: Senate report impacting climate debate. Sampling of international coverage of report: UK Telegraph; Boston Herald; Canada’s National Post; New York Times; Fox News; CNNMoney.com; Human Events; Croatia’s Javno; The Cincinnati Enquirer; WorldNetDaily.com; United Press International (UPI); Spero News; New Zealand Herald; CNSNews.com; Real Clear Politics; PA’s Morning Call; Investor's Business Daily; Philippine’s Manila Standard; Colorado Springs Gazette; Canada Free Press; Belfast Telegraph; Newsmax.com; CA’s Orange County Register; Nashua Telegraph; Yahoo News; & Australia’s Herald Sun;
      UPDATE: IMPACT: Scientist ponders reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists (LINK)
      UPDATE: More and more scientists continue to declare their dissent of the ‘consensus.’ (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, Argentina, New Zealand, the Philippines and France, 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 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; 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; 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; Columbia University; 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) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. 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," O'Brien said. "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)

      UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)

      The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (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. (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," Winterhalter said.

      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: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "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 CO2 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."

      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."

      # # #

      Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

      The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight time the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

      Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

      The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

      UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

      The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

      A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

      With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists.

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

      December 20, 2007

      This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

      [Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

      Atmospheric scientist 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!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an ‘adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "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," he concluded. (LINK)

      Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaigns do a disservice to the environmental movement. "Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures," Rancourt wrote in a February 27, 2007 blog post. Rancourt believes that global warming "will not become humankind's greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around,)" and noted that even if CO2 emissions were a grave threat, "government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world." Rancourt believes environmentalists have been duped into promoting global warming as a crisis. "I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized," Rancourt wrote. Rancourt also questioned the whole concept of a global average temperature, noting, "Averaging problems aside, many tenuous approximations must be made in order to arrive at any of the reported final global average temperature curves." He further explained: "This means that determining an average of a quantity (Earth surface temperature) that is everywhere different and continuously changing with time at every point, using measurements at discrete times and places (weather stations), is virtually impossible; in that the resulting number is highly sensitive to the chosen extrapolation method(s) needed to calculate (or rather approximate) the average." "The estimates are uncertain and can change the calculated global warming by as much as 0.5 C, thereby removing the originally reported effect entirely," he added. Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers. "There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population," he said, adding, "As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator." Rancourt added, "Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middle class." (LINK)

      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. "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural," Kukla explained. (LINK) Kukla "said that the accelerating warming of the Earth is not caused by man but by the regularities of the planets' circulation around the Sun," according to a June 4, 2007 article in the Prague Monitor. "The changes in the Earth's circulation around the Sun are now extremely slow. Moreover, they are partially being compensated by the human impact on the climate. I think we will know more in about 50 years," Kukla said. Kukla is viewed as a pioneer in the study of solar forcing of climate changes. (LINK) & (LINK)

      One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "There is some evidence to show that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. What is in doubt, however, is whether the steps that are proposed to be taken to reduce carbon emission will really bring down the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and whether such attempts, even carried out on a global scale, will produce the desired effect," Radhakrishna wrote in an August 23, 2007 essay. "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. We appear to be now only in the middle of an interglacial cycle showing a trend toward warming as warming and cooling are global and have occurred on such a scale when humans had not appeared on the planet. If we read geology correctly, the earth we live on is not dead but is dynamic and is continuously changing. The causes of these changes are cosmogenic and nothing we are able to do is likely to halt or reverse such processes," he explained. "Warming of the climate, melting of glaciers, rise in sea levels and other marked changes in climate - these do not pose immediate threats and there is besides, no way of controlling such changes even if we want to. Exercises at mitigation of these likely disasters are, however, possible and mankind, in all likelihood, will gradually adjust itself to the changed conditions. This has happened before; men and animals have moved to greener pastures and adapted themselves to the changed situations," he added. (LINK)

      Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology who has spent over 50 years in the "weather business" all around the globe, and who has written four books on weather and climate, says "the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities. (For example, the 2007 IPCC report - see below - shows that from 1900 to 2005, significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia)," he explained. (LINK) Maunder also was one of the signatories of a December 13, 2007 open letter critical of the UN IPCC process. “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998,” the letter Maunder signed stated. “That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling,” the letter added. (LINK)

      Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences dismissed alarmist climate fears of all of the world's ice melting in a March 27, 2007 article. "The planet may rest assured," Osokin wrote. "This hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years," he explained. "Today, scientists say that the melting of the permafrost has stalled, which has been proved by data obtained by meteorological stations along Russia's Arctic coast," Olokin added. "The (recent) period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having a shorter or longer rhythm. Yet no matter how these sinusoids look, a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice versa." (LINK)

      Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge who was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center. Paltridge questioned the motives of scientists hyping climate fears. "They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science," Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed entitled "Global Warming - Not Really a Done Deal?" Paltridge is best known internationally for his work on atmospheric radiation and on the theoretical basis of climate change. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. Paltridge also worked with the National Climate Program Office. "Even as it is, the barriers to public dissemination of results that might cast doubt on one aspect or another of accepted greenhouse wisdom are extraordinarily high. Climate scientists rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by ideas not supportive of the basic thesis that global warming is perhaps the greatest of the threats to mankind and that it is caused by human folly - the burning of fossil fuels to support our way of life," Paltridge explained. "In a way, their situation is very similar to that of the software engineers who sold the concept of the Y2K bug a decade ago. The ‘reputation stakes' have become so high that it is absolutely necessary for some form of international action (any action, whether sensible or not) to be forced upon mankind. Then, should disaster not in fact befall, the avoidance of doom can be attributed to that action rather than to the probability that the prospects for disaster were massively oversold," he added. "Pity the politicians who (we presume) are trying their best to make an informed decision on the matter. Of course politicians realize that those clamoring for their attention on any particular issue usually have other un-stated agendas. But they may not recognize that scientists too are human and are as subject as the rest of us to the seductions of well-funded campaigns. One of the more frightening statements about global warming to be heard now from the corridors of power is that ‘the scientists have spoken'. Well maybe they have - some of them anyway - but the implication of god-like infallibility is a bit hard to take," he concluded.
      Climate Scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona is a member of both the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth’s Executive Committee and the Committee on Global Change. Herman questioned how the UN IPCC could express 90% confidence that humans have warmed the planet. "That conclusion was really surprising to me, it having come from a world wide group of supposedly outstanding climate experts," Herman wrote in an April 6, 2007 article in Climate Science. Herman, who is currently studying several satellite based remote sensing projects to monitor ozone, temperature, water vapor, and aerosols from space, noted that the climate models are not cooperating with predictions of a man-made climate catastrophe. "Now, the models also predict that the mid tropospheric warming should exceed that observed at the ground, but satellite data contradicts this," Herman wrote. (LINK)

      Prof. Francis Massen of the Physics Laboratory in Luxemburg and the leader of a meteorological station examined the UN IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM). "The SPM conceals that the methane concentration in the atmosphere has been stable for seven years (and nobody knows exactly why); not one climatic model foresaw this," Massen wrote in a February 2007 article entitled "IPCC 4AR SPM: Gloom and Doom." (translated) Massen noted there is an "unrestrained contest among media, environmental groups and politicians" to paint as dire a picture as possible of future climate conditions following the UN summary. Massen called some of the climate reporting "absolute rubbish." "It seems that in the climatic area a new faith fight has broken out, which has all characteristics of historical Religion," he added. (LINK)

      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. "I believe we have the duty to inform people about the true facts of global warming. It is interesting that is this global warming era of hysteria we just lived a very cold week with snow in the higher elevation of Southern Brazil and that the next week could be even colder with low temperatures not seen in this part of the globe during the month of May in the last 20 to 30 years. It is not only South Africa that is freezing. South America is under a sequence of cold blasts not seen since the very cold climatic winter of 2000 (La Niña)," Hackbart concluded. In a June 5, 2007 article, Hackbart noted that the "historical cold events in Southern Brazil (in 1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect in common. They all took place around the 11-year sun cycle solar minimum." (LINK) & (LINK)

      Ocean researcher Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, who led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. Everett, who is also project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries." Everett, who publishes the website http://www.climatechangefacts.info/index.htm also expressed skepticism about climate fears in 2007. "It is time for a reality check," Everett testified to Natural Resources Committee in the U.S. Congress on April 17, 2007. "Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing," Everett emphasized. "The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change," Everett said. "In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology changes rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed those expected with global warming and occur much faster. The one degree F. rise since about 1860, indeed since the year 1000, has brought the global average temperature from 56.5 to 57.5 degrees. This is at the level of noise in this rapidly changing system," Everett explained. "I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated," he added. "More of the warming, if it comes, will be during winters and at night and toward the poles. For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution," he explained. "No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more," Everett concluded. Everett also worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service as Division Chief for Fisheries Development in the 1970s and he noted that the concern then was about how predicted global cooling would impact the oceans. (LINK) & (LINK)

      Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists," released a scientific study of the Arctic on March 2007 that concluded the recent warming was likely "natural" and not manmade. (LINK) Akasofu, an award winning scientist who has published more than 550 professional journal articles and authored or co-authored 10 books, also recently blasted the UN IPCC process. "I think the initial motivation by the IPCC (established in 1988) was good; it was an attempt to promote this particular scientific field," Akasofu said in an April 1, 2007 interview. "But so many [scientists] jumped in, and the media is looking for a disaster story, and the whole thing got out of control," Akasofu added. The article continued: "Akasofu said there is no data showing that ‘most' of the present warming is due to the man-made greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in February. "If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present," Akasofu said. The article concluded: "Akasofu said scientists who support the man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been available in the satellite era only since the 1960s and 1970s. ‘Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,' he said. ‘All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That's what I call 'instant climatology.' I'm trying to tell young scientists, 'You can't study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.'" (LINK)

      Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics." The abstract of the paper reads in part, "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." Gerlich and Tscheuschner's study concluded, "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training." (LINK) & (LINK)

      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, expressed skepticism of climate fears in 2007. A July 7, 2007 article in Canada's Financial Post read, "In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. ‘The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium,' explains Prof. Segalstad. ‘This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.'" The article continued, "Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in ‘a missing sink.' Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success. ‘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,' Prof. Segalstad concludes. ‘It is all a fiction.'" (LINK)

      Geologist Dr. David Kear, the former director of geological survey at the Department of Science and Industrial Research in New Zealand, called predictions of rising sea level as a result of man-made global warming "science fiction," and said the basic rules of science are being ignored. "When youngsters are encouraged to take part in a school science fair the first thing they are told to do is check the results, then re-check them, something NIWA [National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research] appear to have forgotten to do," Kear said in a April 13, 2007 article. "In looking at the next 50 years, why have they not studied the past 50 years and applied their findings to the predictions? One would think this was a must," Kear explained. The article continued, "First global warming predictions made in 1987 estimated an annual rise in sea levels of 35mm. That scared the world but since then, the figure has continued to be reduced by ‘experts.'" Kear concluded, "Personal beliefs on climate change and rising sea levels should be delayed until just one of the many predictions made since 1985 on the basis of carbon additions to the atmosphere comes true." (LINK)

      Solar Physicist and Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, who coauthored the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, and has worked at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has developed a scorecard to evaluate how accurate climate models have been. Hoyt wrote, "Starting in 1997, we created a scorecard to see how climate model predictions were matching observations. The picture is not pretty with most of the predictions being wrong in magnitude and often in sign." (LINK) A March 1, 2007 blog post in the National Review explained how the scoring system works. "[Hoyt] gives each prediction a ‘yes-no-undetermined score.' So if the major models' prediction is confirmed, the score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared with the evidence? The final score is 1-27-4. That's one confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined," the blog noted. Hoyt has extensively researched the sun-climate connection and has published nearly 100 scientific papers in such areas as the greenhouse effect, aerosols, cloud cover, radiative transfer, and sunspot structure. (LINK) To see Hoyt's climate model scorecard, go here: (LINK)

      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. "It is with great regret that I find media apt to grab any prophesy for catastrophes by ‘reputed scientists' without hesitation," Winterhalter wrote on his website. Winterhalter, one of the 60 signatories in a 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, also wrote, "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." "To state that sea level rises or falls due to global change is completely out of proportion. There are far too many factors affecting this planet from the inside and the outside to warrant the idea that man is capable of influencing these natural processes," he added. (LINK)

      Particle Physicist Jasper Kirkby, a research scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, believes his research will reveal that the sun and cosmic rays are a "part of the climate-change cocktail." Kirkby runs a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) project that examines how the sun and cosmic rays impact clouds and subsequently the climate. In a February 23, 2007 Canadian National Post article, CERN asserted, "Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance, and changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate." According to the National Post article, "Dr. Kirkby has assembled a dream team of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists from 18 institutes around the world, including the California Institute of Technology and Germany's Max-Planck Institutes, with preliminary data expected to arrive this coming summer. The world of particle physics is awaiting these results with much anticipation because they promise to unlock mysteries that can tell us much about climate change, as well as other phenomena." Kirkby once said his research into the sun and cosmic rays "will probably account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century." (LINK)

      Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believe the climate is driven by the sun and predict global cooling will soon occur. The two scientists are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a UK scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to "compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018," according to an April 16, 2007 article in Live Science. (LINK) Bashkirtsev and Mashnich have questioned the view that the "anthropogenic impact" is driving Earth's climate. "None of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact," the two scientists noted in 2003. Bashkirtsev and Mashnich believe the evidence of solar impacts on the climate "leave little room for the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate." They believe that "solar variations naturally explain global cooling observed in 1950-1970, which cannot be understood from the standpoint of the greenhouse effect, since CO2 was intensely released into the atmosphere in this period." (LINK)

      Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut and author of "The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World," debunked fears of a man-made climate disaster during a presentation in April. "You think SUVs are the cause of glaciers shrinking? I don't think so," Hayden, who retired after 32 years as a professor, said, according to an April 25, 2007 article in Maine Today. "Don't believe what you hear out of Hollywood and Washington, D.C.," Hayden said. According to the article, Hayden argued that "climate history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global warming backwards. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, he said, does not cause the Earth to be warmer. Instead," he said, "a warmer Earth causes the higher carbon dioxide levels." Hayden explained, "The sun heats up the Earth and the oceans warm up and atmospheric carbon dioxide rises." According to the article, Hayden "said humans' contribution to global carbon dioxide levels is virtually negligible." Hayden is also the editor of a monthly newsletter called "The Energy Advocate." (LINK)

      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, questioned man-made global warming fears. According to an April 27, 2007 article at Zenit.org, Zichichi "pointed out that human activity has less than 10% impact on the environment." The article noted that Zichichi "showed that the mathematical models used by the [UN's] IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method. He said the IPCC used ‘the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations.'" Zichichi said that based upon actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes," and he added that it is plausible that "man is not to blame." According to the article, "He also reminded those present that 500,000 years ago the Earth lost the North and South Poles four times. The poles disappeared and reformed four times, he said. Zichichi said that in the end he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of ‘greenhouse gases' produced through human activity. Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays." Zichichi also signed a December 2007 open letter to the United Nations stating in part "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." (LINK) & (LINK) & bio: (LINK)

      Renowned Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore, a fellow of the UK's Royal Astronomical Society, host of the BBC's Sky at Night program since 1957 and author of over 60 books on astronomy called global warming concern ‘rubbish' in an interview with The Sun in 2005. "I think it's a lot of rubbish! From 1645-1715 the sun was inactive and we had a 'Little Ice Age,'" Moore said. "Then the sun went back to normal and the world warmed up," he concluded. Moore most recently co-authored two books published in 2006: 50 Years in Space: What We Thought Then What We Know Now; and Bang! The Complete History of the Universe. (LINK)

      Atmospheric scientist Dr. James P. Koermer, a Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University dismissed man-made global warming fears. "Global warming hysteria is based to a large extent on the unproven predictions of climate models. These numerical models are based on many simplified approximations of very complicated physical processes and phenomena," Koermer wrote to EPW on December 3, 2007. "My biggest concern is their [computer models'] lack of ability to adequately handle water vapor and clouds, which are much more important as climate factors than anthropogenic contributors. Until we can realistically simulate types of clouds, their optical thicknesses, and their altitudes, which we have a difficult time doing for short-term weather forecasts, I can't have much faith in climate models," Koermer wrote. "Another major reason that I remain skeptical is based on what I know about past climate changes that occurred before man walked on earth. I am more amazed with how relatively stable climate has been over the past 15,000 or so years, versus the large changes that frequently appeared to take place prior to that time. I also can't ignore some of the recent evidence presented by some very well respected astrophysicists on solar variability. Most meteorologists including me have always been taught to treat the sun's output as a constant--now I am not so sure and I am intrigued by their preliminary findings relating to climate," he concluded. (LINK)

      Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" We don't even know how much." (LINK)

      Astronomer Dr. Jeff Zweerink of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) studies gamma rays, black holes, and neutron stars and has declared himself a skeptic of man-made climate fears. "Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth's biomass, for example," Zweerink wrote on December 18, 2006. "While politicians and activists focus on the effects of fossil fuel burning the breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of rice, for example, actually does more harm than driving too many SUV's," Zweerink added. (LINK)

      Computer modeler Dr. Donald DuBois, who holds a PhD in Philosophy of Science, has spent most of his career modeling computer networks for NASA's International Space Station, GE Space Systems, the Air Force, and the Navy. DuBois is very skeptical of climate computer models predicting doom. "I know something about how misleading models can be, and the fact that their underlying assumptions can completely predetermine the results of the model. If the major climate models that are having a major impact on public policy were documented and put in the public domain, other qualified professionals around the world would be interested in looking into the validity of these models," DuBois wrote to EPW on May 17, 2007. "Right now, climate science is a black box that is highly questionable with unstated assumptions and model inputs. It is especially urgent that these models come out in the open considering how much climate change legislation could cost the United States and the world economies. Ross McKitrick's difficulty in getting the information from [Michael] Mann on his famous ‘hockey stick' [temperature] curve is a case in point which should be a scandal not worth repeating. The cost of documenting the models and making them available would be a trifle; the cost of not doing so could be astronomical," DuBois wrote. "I headed up a project to model computer networks (to see how they will perform before they are built) for NASA's International Space Station (including the ground stations around the globe). If I had suggested a $250 million network for the ISS and said that I was basing this recommendation on my modeling but the models were not available for inspection, I would have been laughed out of the auditorium in Houston."

      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. "It's just a political thing, and the lies about global warming are contributing to the proliferation of nuclear energy," Uriarte said according to a September 2007 article in the Spanish newspaper El Correo. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriarte wrote. "Far from provoking the so-called greenhouse effect, [CO2] stabilizes the climate." Uriarte noted that "the Earth is not becoming desertified, it's greener all the time." Uriarte says natural factors dominate the climate system. "The Earth being spherical, the tropics always receive more heat than the poles and the imbalance has to be continually rectified. They change places because of the tilt of the earth's axis. And, moreover, the planet isn't smooth, but rough, which produces perturbations in the interchange of air masses. We know the history of the climate very well and it has change
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
      • 2009.11.26 | zаброда

        I don't care a piss about global warming BUT

        треба таки бачити ріжницю межи просто потеплінням і антропогенним потеплінням: принаймні 30% скептиків у "Звіті чотирьохсот" заперечують вплив людського чинника, а не самий факт потепління". Let's be discreet, huh?
    • 2009.11.26 | Sych

      Докази є. І про підробку, і про про те, що на зміни клімату

      людина не впливає. Вся заворуха націлена на комуністичну редістрибуцію фінансів та банальний дєрібан.
  • 2009.11.26 | Sych

    Сенатор на CNBC. Зауважте як ведуче зі шкіри лізе(л,в,англ)

    щоби перебити сенатора.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfHZ4YnjnPs
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
    • 2009.11.26 | Сергій Кабуд

      ведучий з CNBC - яскраво виражений слизняк

      з манерами підараста ,гидке видовисько

      пан сенатор Inhofe - достойний класний чувачок.
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
      • 2009.11.26 | Almodovar

        До панів Адмінів!

        Панове адміністратори! Обговорення проблем сьогодення, важких і смердючих, може відбуватися різним чином, в тому числі, можливо, і з застосуванням специфічної лексики, висловленої стосовно ОБ'єкта обговорення. Однак, ніхто не давав права застосовувати таку ж лексику стосовно СУБ'ЄКТА обговорення.
        Присутній на форумі учасник під ніком Сергій Кабуд поставив, як видно, за мету не стільки обговорення, скільки паплюження честі і гідності учасників форуму та й самої ідеї вільного обговорення. Читати хворобливу маячню в стилі пізнього Форрестола, брудну лайку і паскудні образи на адресу учасників стає просто неможливим. Сторінки форуму просто завалені цим паскудством.
        Мені тепер стало соромно рекомендувати і сайт і форум колєгам,друзям і знайомим. За якістю обговорення форум, за активної участі учаснка "Сергій Кабуд", скоро зрівняється з порно-форумами.
        При всій повазі до приватної власності, думаю, слід щось робити в цьому напрямі.
        Га?
  • 2009.11.27 | Sych

    Хлопець класно це діло викладає James Corbett(л,англ)

    http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091125_enviro_message.htm
  • 2009.11.30 | Sych

    Пєсня: брехуни знищили первісні дані(л,англ)

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
  • 2009.11.30 | Illia

    Re: Докази підробки даних щодо глобального потепління(л,англ)

    Та нічого страшно з цим потеплінням немає. Завди були потепління і похолодання. Які були викликані зміною орбіти Землі, зміною активності Сонця, геологічною активністю. Ну цього разу додався ще антропогенний вплив.
    Це потуги нічого не змінять. Кардинальна зміна клімату все одно станеться. Не через 100 років, так через 1000.
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
    • 2009.11.30 | Sych

      Re: Ну цього разу додався ще антропогенний вплив.

      От якраз і не додався. Про що і йдеться!
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
      • 2009.11.30 | Мартинюк

        Йдеться про те що ті, хто конкретно нищать довкілля

        Переводять стрілки на загальники - типу там загальні зміни клімату і таке подібне. Я не маю на увазі скептиків алярмізму, я маю на увазі тих, які гучним криками триймай злодія переводять увагу світу на міфи.
        згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
        • 2009.11.30 | Sych

          Це і є головна проблема сучасного енварменталізму.

          Фактично весь енвайроменталізм були вкрадено AGW-істами в яких зацікавлені трейдери карбоном тіпа Гора, державники які стягуватимуть (де-інде вже стягують!) карбонові податки та прочая наволоч що не проти пор(а)уліть світом (див. Копенгаген наступного місяця). Дивіться лінк на Корбета - від дуже все класно розписав.


Copyleft (C) maidan.org.ua - 2000-2018. Архів пітримує Громадська організація Інформаційний центр "Майдан Моніторинг". E-mail: news@maidan.org.ua