global warming

"Scientists are Not on the Global Warming Bandwagon

And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact. What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000 scientists. Americans aren’t being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to…man-made causes."

http://acuf.org/issues/issue27/050105gov.asp


Hmm, just something to add to the debate.

Global warming in a nutshell. As with all scientific terms, they are hard for the public to understand, so what you need to do is use a common term that everyone can understand. People think global warming means everything is warmer, but that's not the case. What you're really seeing with global warming is wide variance in temperature, you see more extremes in weather. So one area can get colder despite the fact that the fact that global warming is taking place.

But instead of looking at what winter is cold and what summer is hot, you have to look at the overall temperature change. They say that the global temperature has risen 1-2[font=&quot]°[/font]C globally. Some people say, that's really small, but consider the Ice Age, which was only a few degrees difference globally and the length of time it took the Earth to form the modern world. For a temperature change that happened over centuries to be squeezed into one century (actually even less) is significant.

Another question, what's the difference between water at 0[font=&quot]°[/font]C and water at 1[font=&quot]°[/font]C? The answer to that question is why you should be alarmed by an increase in temperature exceeding a degree in such a short period of time. This is an El Niño year, weather will be wild in the U.S. this year, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the weather has changed and we're seeing milder winters. A great indicator is the fact that people in my area no longer fill bags with leaves for Halloween (the ones with Jack O'Lanterns and ghost faces) because the leaves fall much later now.

But for all those that call global warming a "myth" please provide sources or a study in a peer reviewed journal that supports this claim. A website is not a reputable source in this subject.

As has already been discussed, we are referring to the myth of man-made causes and greenhouse gases.

Now, from the article I quoted above, we find this.

"It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups who have an agenda. The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical environmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle. Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing “scientists” to the ACIA “researchers” is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers who create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

...

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings, and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists. There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called “peer review.” It's the only true science.
And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available."

So back at you, and show us a peer-review study on the info in the OP.