Global Warming and Evolution

[True_Blue]

A lot of evolutionists who've posted on CF frequently post that Christians are foolish because there are so many college professors and scientists that believe in evolution, and there's all this scientific evidence supporting evolution. The purpose of this thread is to show why millions of very smart people can all be wrong about an important scientific theory by drawing an analogy with global warming.

Global warming has 5 propositions:

1. The earth is warming up.
The answer to this question depends on which starting and ending points you pick. If you look at the last ten years, unambiguous satellite data shows a cooling trend. NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit show a 0.8 to 0.6 C drop in global temperatures. The oceans have also cooled during the last several years. If you go back to 1600 AD, the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. If you go back to 1000 years, the earth has generally been cooling. Just as with measuring the return on the stock market, everything depends on which time spread you use.

2. Mankind is causing the warming.
Global warming is ultimately all about statistics. I read recently that fluctuations in solar activity accounts for 99.7% of the surface temperature of the earth. With that overwhelmingly powerful correlation, it's likely statistically impossible to attribute temperatures to anything other than the sun. In the last ten years, the relationship between temperature and CO2 is negative. CO2 levels are definitely rising, but there is no statistically significant relationship between the two phenomena, nor can there be because of the sun's overwhelming effect.

3. Global warming is bad.
The theory is that hotter temperatures are a bad thing, causing bad things like rising ocean levels. When I was in 4th grade in 1988, I bet another 4th grader named Luke from Cottage Grove, Oregon $20 that the sea levels would not rise several feet by the year 2000 as many people were predicting. If anyone sees Luke from Cottage Grove, OR, tell him he owes me $20. Shrinking polar ice caps have had no effect on ocean levels (the Bible says that the oceans are fixed), and warmer temperatures near the poles will allow more more abundant life. More CO2 would be an enormous blessing for the ecosystem because it would provide far more carbon for plants to feed on, providing more food for animals. Eventually, all the excess CO2 will be taken up by plants and photosynthetic microbes. Prices of ocean-front property are sky-high all over the world, so people aren't making economic decisions based on a fear of global warming. There hasn't been a huge increase in bad weather, only an increase in property damage and loss of life because of growing populations and growing economies.

4. Only by spending trillions of dollars and virtually deindustrializing our economies can we save the world.
The global warming theory is extremely dangerous because of the vast amounts of money being spent to abate it. That money could be spent on feeding starving children, on health care, disease prevention, education, and other noble activities. The IPCC says we'd have to spend between $78 billion and $1.141 trillion PER YEAR to abate global warming. The amount of poverty and misery this expenditure would cause is almost incalculable.

5. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the four statements above.
According to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming by J. Bast and J. Taylor, 82% of scientists believe the earth is warming up. I also tend to agree, based on the last 400 years or so. But 66% of climate scientists disagreed with the statement that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." Only 49% said that global warming could cause devastation in some areas of the world. 33% disagreed and 17% were uncertain.

The journalists that control the media are 95% secular-progressive. They have been feeding us bad information with regards to global warming, and they are feeding us bad information with regards to evolution. Just as millions of people and thousands of scientists can hold incorrect views on global warming, so also is the "consensus" wrong on evolution.

 

[Maverick3000]

I hope you got a source for some of those ridiculous claims.


And you need to do more research if you think melting icecaps is a good thing. The problems with them melting is far greater then just the sea waters rising.

 

[Logic_Fault]

A lot of evolutionists who've posted on CF frequently post that Christians are foolish because there are so many college professors and scientists that believe in evolution, and there's all this scientific evidence supporting evolution.

Essentially.

<snipped global warming tirade>

That's nice and all, but what's it got to do with evolution being false?

The journalists that control the media are 95% secular-progressive.

And you got that 95% statistic from where exactly?

They have been feeding us bad information with regards to global warming, and they are feeding us bad information with regards to evolution.

Where? Cite something that is "bad information with regards to evolution." Something that is truly bad, not just fudged because the reporter isn't a scientist and happened to not be quite clear about what the science he's reporting on actually states.

Just as millions of people and thousands of scientists can hold incorrect views on global warming, so also is the "consensus" wrong on evolution.

I'm afraid I fail to see how you've made this connection. You may as well say that since the "consensus" once believed the Earth was flat or the center of the universe they're also wrong about evolution.

 

[True_Blue]

My point in this thread is simple--appeal to scientific consensus is irrelevant with regards to creation/evolution. Also, the key differences between YECs like myself and evolutionists is typically not the data that is collected, but how the data is interpreted and what conclusions are drawn. Somehow, the environmentalists are convincing millions of people to change their behavior, and convincing dozens of governments to spend billions of dollars on a theory that is facially invalid. Evolution is just the same as global warming.

 

[Tenka]

A lot of evolutionists who've posted on CF frequently post that Christians are foolish because there are so many college professors and scientists that believe in evolution, and there's all this scientific evidence supporting evolution.

I assume you mean creationist Christans. Mostly it's because of all the evidence you need to deny. The numbers of scientists on 'our side' is simply a function of how convincing the evidence is.
But, you want to know the real reason creationists are looked down on? It's because you are lazy, you don't make the effort to familiarise yourself with whatever it is you debate you don't check your sources, half the time you don't give sources, you have a willingness to be convinced by obviously fallacious arguments and repeat them long after you're shown how wrong they are, you go into every debate with the arrogant belief that your opposition is so ridiculous that anything you write will crush it but upon finding that your OP is stomped and you are called to answer for it you simply act as obnoxiously as possible and hope the thread turns into a flame war so you have a convenient opportunity to escape.

 

[True_Blue]

I assume you mean creationist Christans. Mostly it's because of all the evidence you need to deny. The numbers of scientists on 'our side' is simply a function of how convincing the evidence is.
But, you want to know the real reason creationists are looked down on? It's because you are lazy, you don't make the effort to familiarise yourself with whatever it is you debate you don't check your sources, half the time you don't give sources, you have a willingness to be convinced by obviously fallacious arguments and repeat them long after you're shown how wrong they are, you go into every debate with the arrogant belief that your opposition is so ridiculous that anything you write will crush it but upon finding that your OP is stomped and you are called to answer for it you simply act as obnoxiously as possible and hope the thread turns into a flame war so you have a convenient opportunity to escape.

Ok, Tenka, give me your favorite evolutionist argument and we'll see if I'm lazy.

 

[TeddyKGB]

And you got that 95% statistic from where exactly?

"Secular progressive"? That's got Bill-O written all over it.

 

[Tenka]

Ok, Tenka, give me your favorite evolutionist argument and we'll see if I'm lazy.

TB, you've already rejected evolutionary theory so if what I said about creationists doesn't apply to you I must assume you've taken the time to actually study the subject.
Given that Talkorigins.com is one of the most convenient, concise and commonly referenced sites for evolution related topics you are practically obliged as a mould breaking creationist to make yourself familiar with the material therin. Where do they go wrong?
If you've properly educated yourself with evolutionary theory and the evidence supporting it what cause did you find to soundly reject it?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

TRUE BLUE WROTE

Global Warming and Evolution

​

Global warming has 5 propositions:

1. The earth is warming up.

Yes; absolutely true, but this is cyclical and the earth will one day cool again.

2. Mankind is causing the warming.

No; mankind is NOT causing the warming, but we are contributing to the warming.

3. Global warming is bad.

Wrong; global warming is not bad for the planet; but it is very bad for the human race.

4. Only by spending trillions of dollars and virtually deindustrializing our economies can we save the world.

The world is safe; it is the human race that is in danger.

5. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the four statements above.

Wrong; most scientists would not agree with your statements.

The journalists that control the media are 95% secular-progressive. They have been feeding us bad information with regards to global warming, and they are feeding us bad information with regards to evolution. Just as millions of people and thousands of scientists can hold incorrect views on global warming, so also is the "consensus" wrong on evolution.

Journalists are glory hunters and dome mongers; they always put a slant on every story; remember their job is too sell news papers, and not to do scientific research.

size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#f1f4fa" align=center> ​

 

[thaumaturgy]

My point in this thread is simple--appeal to scientific consensus is irrelevant with regards to creation/evolution.

Well, it would be if Creationists ever provided data. But most we get from Creationists is mere critiques of actual data which usually supports evolution. Just look at the sum total of the output of most Creationist organizations like AiG or others of their ilk, it is almost always just trying to poke holes in the evolutionary model.

While that is a noble effort, they never really get around to actually providing any workable model of their own.

Too bad, too! Because promulgating doubt merely for the sake of doubt is not such a noble effort.

Also, the key differences between YECs like myself and evolutionists is typically not the data that is collected, but how the data is interpreted and what conclusions are drawn.

And with that I will agree. YEC's basically don't really understand the science so their "interpretation" is not ulike the interpretation of a child when presented with a mass of physics data.

No offense, True Blue, but if you are a real Young Earth person, then you must have a completely unfounded concept of physics and chemistry. All I've ever seen from the young earth crowd is the wholesale gutting and destruction of what we know about physics and chemistry at some undetermined point the distant past which is then somehow miraculously swept away to give us the present day physics and chemistry and no evidence for any such wholesale change.

I'm sure you understand some science, since you have claimed you are a business person who manages scientists, but honestly, if you want to get into the YE part of YEC, I think I can point you in some directions as to how to correct your misunderstandings of earth science.

You may be quite smart in business or law and might have a smattering of science. I highly recommend you leverage that intelligence to sit in on a few Geology Classes at a local college.

Somehow, the environmentalists are convincing millions of people to change their behavior, and convincing dozens of governments to spend billions of dollars on a theory that is facially invalid.

Ironically enough there are very few scientists who think this is in error. My wife has actually seen the medal Keeling received for generating the Keeling Curve. We know we are pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and we all know that CO2 will absorb in the IR region of the electromagnetic spectrum (take it from me, I spent years tracking that little annoying CO2 peak in my FTIR analyses for completely unrelated materials).

Where is the "mystery"?

1. We know we are directly responsible for loading up the atmosphere with a CO2 at levels far outpacing anything seen in the past.

2. We know, from studies of the isotopic signature of this added carbon (SOURCE) in the atmosphere that a great deal of this increase is from human activity.

3. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

4. We understand how the Greenhouse Effect works:

Solar radiation is absorbed by the planet which then re-radiates IR which is, as noted above, absorbed by the increased CO2 and other known greenhouse gases.

Now, are there any questions? Is this a "done-deal"? I don't know, but from what I've read from some real authorities on this, and from what this model indicates, if it isn't it is our best estimate of what will be our future.

You're a businessman. What level of "risk" are you comfortable with in your investments? If I told you I know a guy who lies about 85% of the time, can barely add 3 numbers together with the aid of a calculator and who has an intense aversion to work or accountability, and he'd like for you to invest in his company. Would you do so?

This is how models work. Unfortunately with Global Climate Change the potential outcomes are:

1. If the model is wrong; nothing
2. If the model is right; wholesale destruction of human society

I'm not overly fond of "Pascal's Wager" with regards to religion (since I think there are theological flaws in it), but in this regard, the wager, or application of only the most rudimentary "game theory" indicates that by doing nothing we are either going to have no impact or we are going to have a disastrous impact the results of which are infinitely worse than if nothing happens.

Place your bets! Who you gonna trust? The mass of scientists who believe Global Climate Change is real? Or the few dissenting opinions?

 

[Allegory]

You know what? I'm sold. We should continue polluting and raping the resources of the earth with little regard for the rest of the world.

 

[Morcova]

This has what to do with evolution again?

 

[Gawron]

Although I do believe there is a connection between Global Warming science and Evolutionary science, in that both are heavily influenced by an agenda, this post will be limited to commentary on the global warming issue. Also, I had a chart or two to post, but am still below the magic number of 100 post.

To begin, a bit of background. On July 28th, 2003, Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, delivered a speech attacking the claims of global warming alarmists. During this speech he stated:

"The Global Warming movement is designed not to solve an environmental problem, but to satisfy the ever-growing demand of environmental groups for money and power." He urged colleagues to reject measures to treat what he called a "non-existent problem".

On May 28th, 2003, Dr. John R. Christy testified before the Committee on Resources of the US House. Christy is a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and specifically pointed out that carbon dioxide "is not a pollutant", but rather "is the lifeblood of the planet." On the question that CO 2 is causing planetary warming, he stated:

"Climate models suggest that the answer is yes; real data suggest otherwise." He is one of many to point to inaccuracies stemming from reliance on climate models.

This question is usually part of any debate on global warming: "Does man's burning of fossil fuels actually account for most of the increased amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere?" These two guys, Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa and Nir Shaviv of Hebrew University of Jerusalem, say no. They independently reached the same conclusion, that the rise in CO 2 levels are more the result of interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays from deep space than man's activity. Others who have reached this conclusion include scientist Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The consensus is that solar activity is the principal cause of climate fluctuations.

In January of 2002 Science magazine published findings of scientist who measured Antarctic ice formations and concluded that the ice near the South Pole is growing thicker, as opposed to claims of the global warming crowd that it is growing thinner. Over the past 30 years temperatures in the Antarctic have decreased, not increased. This according to Nature magazine and scientist Peter Doran.

Here is an interesting comment from William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University:

"It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase, water vapor and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop. It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapor and cloudiness that some scientist hypothesize.”

“The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop. Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic."

I read this as water vapor and cirrus cloudiness creates a negative rather than a positive feedback to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases, within which no significant human induced greenhouse gas warming can occur. Yes or no?

Add to this that carbon dioxide is only 0.04 % of the atmosphere, with nitrogen accounting for 78 % and oxygen 20%, leaving water vapor to account for the remainder fluctuating between 0 and 3 %. It is said that all of these gasses are 'greenhouse gases', they all absorb and re-emit infrared radiation just like CO 2 does, and they all conduct and convect heat produced by the sun. Water vapor absorbs radiation comparably to C0 2, and there is up to 100 times as much of it in the atmosphere. The concentration of water vapor varies greatly over time, while the concentration of CO 2 changes only slightly. Add to this another fact not usually mentioned is that absorption of radiation is not the only factor creating the greenhouse effect. According to scientist, conduction and convection also add heat, and much more significantly than radiation. But go to the website of the Union of Concerned Scientist and you will find that the entire greenhouse effect is being attributed to radiation absorbed by the micro components of the atmosphere. There you will find it said that the greenhouse effect, attributed to CO 2 and the other micro-components, has increased the temperature of the earth by 59 degrees F. Can 0.04% of the atmosphere really do that?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...emissions.html

You will also find this article: Congress Should Cut Nuclear Energy Loan Guarantee Provisions From Energy Bill, Advocacy Groups Say

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...lear-0074.html

But I digress.

What other than CO 2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming? Evidence indicates that the cause of oceans heating is a hot spot rotating in the earth's core. Geologist would know this better than I, but apparently the ice age cycles point to this, because they have been cycling at exactly 100 thousand year intervals for the past million years, or on a predictable cyclical basis. Are environmental effects this pedantic, or rather random?

http://nov55.com/thry.html

Finally, it is generally accepted fact that the 20th century did show a warming trend, with a globally averaged surface temperature rise of 0.5 degrees C. But is CO 2 the cause? According to the facts, most of this rise in temperature occurred before 1940, a time in which 80 % of the CO 2 present in the atmosphere from human activities was indeed not present. Does this not suggest natural warming during this period, as opposed to the SUV crowd being at fault?

Then include the climate record for the past 1,000 years and you can see that this rise in temperature is hardly unique. In researching the Little Ice Age, it appears that the 20th century's warming seems largely a natural rebound from the cold spell which persisted nearly to the 20th century.

In the last decade America has spent 18 billion dollars (or more) in research funding to study global warming. 18 BILLION DOLLARS. I can hear Carl Sagan now, "18 BIIILLLLLLIOON DOLLARS". The result of this research shows the threat of catastrophic warming is miniscule against the backdrop of natural change.

Yet all of that money going into someone's pockets has to be protected and preserved. Thus Al Gore says:

"This is a chance to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face now. It truly is a planetary emergency, and we have to respond quickly."

Ching!!

 

[Tenka]

In the last decade America has spent 18 billion dollars (or more) in research funding to study global warming. 18 BILLION DOLLARS. I can hear Carl Sagan now, "18 BIIILLLLLLIOON DOLLARS".

Just to put your alarming sounding 18 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS into perspective, Americans will spend that much just on Valentines day crap this year.

 

[Morcova]

What does that have to do with evolution?

 

[Gawron]

"What does that have to do with evolution?"

Don't be so myopic. The thread title includes both, and I clearly stated my intent with the prior post. True, had I seen the 'global warming' thread before posting here I would have gone there. But I didn't.

"Just to put your alarming sounding 18 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS into perspective, Americans will spend that much just on Valentines day crap this year."

You either mean they did spend that much, or will next year. In either case, at least these people will actually get something for their money other than screwed. Well......

 

[thaumaturgy]

You either mean they did spend that much, or will next year. In either case, at least these people will actually get something for their money other than screwed. Well......

Well, to be fair, we Americans can certainly do with a bit more restraint in our consumption of fossil fuels. We make up something like 5% of the earth's population but use up about 25% of its petroleum.

The problems kick in when China and India come on-line and start pumping as much CO2 and othe greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as we do, maybe more.

The key points in the debate appear to be:

1. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that there is currently global climate change. There are only a few dissenters on this.

2. There is significant evidence for anthropogenic (man-made) carbon influx into the atmosphere:

"
The recent CO2 increase—280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005—is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

• Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
• Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
• Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.

Nonspecialists will not easily be impressed by model calculations and complex budgets that contain often large uncertainties. Moreover, I have seen dishonest skeptics using "old hat" arguments such as ocean CO2 outgassing to refute the responsibility of human activities in the recent CO2 increase and the forthcoming large global warming.
One crucial note about the global budget of inputs and outputs that Weart should have stated: Known CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation largely exceed (by about a factor of two) what remains in the atmosphere. Hence, if warming were the cause of the CO2 increase, how would we account for the hundreds of gigatons of carbon generated by human activity?

Edouard Bard
</I>Collège de France
</I>Aix-en-Provence (SOURCE)

3. Now most scientists believe anthropogenic global climate change is a very real threat.

Our choices are to:

A. Do something and incur some costs and necessary changes to our lifestyles.

B. Do nothing.

If we do A and the results are either "global climate change was not real" or "global climate change was not man made and thus out of our control" then it only cost us some money, but not much else.

If we do A and anthropogenic global climate change was real, we saved our only known home in the universe.

If we do B and anthropogenic globa climate change was real, we destroy our only known home in the universe.

If we do B and global climate change wasn't a problem, then we get to keep some more of our precious money.

Sorry, but elementary game theory (and that's about all I'm capable of is "elementary game theory") would seem to indicate this is a bad bet on "B".

When you factor in that the majority of people who actually study this topic for a living think that "A" is the reasonable choice, and that anthropogenic global climate change is a real threat, well, then you'd have to be a pretty resolute "losing gambler" to choose "B".

How does this relate to the OP? Well the OP is all about "interpretting the data", right? In this case the data has been interpretted and the majority of professionals in this field seem to think there is a significant reason to believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Just like in evolution the majority of professionals in the field feel there is reason to believe in evolution.

When people trot out the "it's all in the analysis", I can only imagine that in this area they are acting quite "Post Modernist" and I am willing to bet that the OP and others with that attitude would be the last to jettison the value of limited-bias data interpretation when it works in their favor. For whatever it is they want to support.

Too many people on the outside of science tend to gravitate to these "easy Po-Mo" answers to support their failure to understand the data or their inherent "skepticism" of science that is not their specialty but might speak against what they hold dear, be it money (as in the usual anti-global climate change debates) or religion (as in the usual anti-evolution debates).

 

[Gawron]

"Now most scientists believe anthropogenic global climate change is a very real threat."

Submitted for your approval:

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

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...

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...

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences...

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain...

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...

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil...

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...

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...

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...

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary...

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...

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...

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007...

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists...

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...

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics...

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw...

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated'...

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute...

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University...

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 times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. Source:

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

 

[Gawron]

In addition, the claim that some 900 studies on the subject support anthropogenic global warming has been shown to be false. The author (a history professor named Oreskes) claimed to have perused the abstracts of more than 900 peer-reviewed papers and found that all were consistent with the Gore-Vision. A subsequent analysis by anthropology professor Benny Peiser showed that less than 1/3 supported the Gore-Vision and that more than 30 of the papers directly contradicted it.

Irrespective of the debate, below is a link to a peer-reviewed Publication of the National Academies of Science: Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change by Charles A. Perry of the USGS and Kenneth J. Hsu of Tarim Associates. Perry and Hsu's paper was one of the many peer-reviewed scientific publications which dispute the Gore-Vision.

Does anyone really think Oreskes innocently missed papers like this in her analysis?

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12433

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The Earth is warming up, but is still concidered cold. Global warming is fine for the planet, but us humans will suffer badly if sea levles rise