A Must read on global warming

[bobblehead]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008544401_warm21.html

I love this article, it epitomizes everything I believe in one article. I know most of you don't want to read a lengthy news article but this is beautiful.

It involves:

*Peeople dismissing a guy due to his education even though their own computer models back him up.

*A private sector guy solving a problem the gov't can't/hasn't (for a micron of the price)

*A guy who basically says that CO2 isn't causing our planet to overheat and then backing it up with science and THEIR OWN computer models only to be mocked by the so called gov't experts.

*A guy who is offering a solution that won't cripple the economy and will cost potentially UNDER a billion a year AND IS BACKED BY THE EXPERTS COMPUTER MODELS. This of course pisses off all the "experts and politicians" because they can't get rich and powerful off controlling the world through a faux manmade global warming crisis.

One of the best reads I've encountered in a long time.

[Partial]

Good read. Though it says it could cost billions.

[digitaldean]

Fantastic article. Just posted the link on Twitter.

Initially sounds kind of bizarre, but with the amt. of evidence presented I think it will work. Sure beats the NASA idea of orbiting mirrors to deflect sunlight or foaming the ocean surface.

I know it could cost billions, but the other ideas would run in the trillions.

I do know this much, we have only measured the earth's temperature since the mid to late 1800s. And even the beginning temperatures were wildly inaccurate. I do not think we in a time of dire emergency, but we do have to take steps to be better stewards of our planet. Plans like this, controlling how we take renewable resources from the planet (as well as non-renewable) can only help us as a society.

Heck, I'd rather have some other way to power our vehicles just so we don't have to be at the mercy of the Saudis, Chavez and the rest of the OPEC cabal.

[bobblehead]

Good read. Though it says it could cost billions.

Actually it says it could will cost millions POSSIBLy into the billions. Consider the alternatives and the fact our gov't has 59 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities and really thats a pittence.

[texaspackerbacker]

Chad Myers, the number two meteorologist at CNN, has come out and stated that manmade global warming is a ridiculous idea too. It will be interesting to see how long he lasts at that bastion of liberal thinking.

This philosophy--manmade global warming--has become something akin to a religion for its environmentalist wacko followers. The question is, how many are really naively taken in by the pseudo-science of it? And how many are on board because of a more sinister agenda--bringing down free enterprise capitalism and American and other western culture and prosperity?

Unfortunately. the other question is, how bad a hit is our way of life gonna take when the wackos do their thing? They have a damn near unstoppable majority now.

[digitaldean]

I even hate to watch the Weather Channel anymore. One of their lead meteorologists talks incessantly about global warming and the poor polar bears.

[Fosco33]

Should we bail out Detroit, the financial markets or the Earth?

Billions should be already be invested in understanding the potential problem - if not backing actual science.

[digitaldean]

Should we bail out Detroit, the financial markets or the Earth?

Billions should be already be invested in understanding the potential problem - if not backing actual science.

Though I find some of the scientific data dubious, investing in alternative energy and cutting back on fossil fuel consumption would be money better spent than throwing it at AIG for another spa retreat or to CITI, etc. or clueless companies like GM.

[texaspackerbacker]

Should we bail out Detroit, the financial markets or the Earth?

Billions should be already be invested in understanding the potential problem - if not backing actual science.

Though I find some of the scientific data dubious, investing in alternative energy and cutting back on fossil fuel consumption would be money better spent than throwing it at AIG for another spa retreat or to CITI, etc. or clueless companies like GM.

It came out today that media darling, Toyota, is losing billions too. This is more than just a case of incompetent leadership by American companies.

It is idiotic environmental and safety standards inflicted on the companies, and it is the pushers of bullshit about economic crisis that are convincing enough people not to buy that their panicky crap is coming true.

[wist43]

Of course man-made global warming is demonstrably laughable, but that doesn't stop this nonsense from being propagated.

The scientific community is begrudgingly admitting their folly, although it won't get any media traction, as the media is still hugely invested in politically correct views... and anything green is about as politically correct as you can get.

Obviously this crackpot got a grant to conduct his "research"... your tax dollars at work. While laughable, the joke is obviously on us.

[Kiwon]

ANOTHER MUST READ!

Are you ready for a little COMMON SENSE?

I'll just post the link but this article is well worth the few minutes it takes to read it.

Maybe, finally, we can get a little sanity restored.

.................................................. ............................

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

[digitaldean]

Maybe, finally, we can get a little sanity restored.
.................................................. ............................

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

________
:tup: :tup:

Thanks for the link. As I previously posted, though I think the evidence on global warming, er, climate change.... whatever, was not sound it still is a good nat'l security stance to find alternative sources so we don't have to import as much foreign oil.

And maybe drill a little more ON OUR OWN CONTINENTAL SHELF. Especially since Cuba announced it would expand its leasing of oil and natural gas for Chinese drilling within 50 miles of the Florida Keys!!

[bobblehead]

Maybe, finally, we can get a little sanity restored.
.................................................. ............................

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

________
:tup: :tup:

Thanks for the link. As I previously posted, though I think the evidence on global warming, er, climate change.... whatever, was not sound it still is a good nat'l security stance to find alternative sources so we don't have to import as much foreign oil.

And maybe drill a little more ON OUR OWN CONTINENTAL SHELF. Especially since Cuba announced it would expand its leasing of oil and natural gas for Chinese drilling within 50 miles of the Florida Keys!!

No one argues this, but the libs want to pass draconian regulations on our businesses and handicap them against the world.

[bobblehead]

PS...I've said this 100 times. You can not regulate technology. If you could I would simply regulate that scientists cure cancer. That is far more valuable then regulating gas mileage or solar panel efficiency.

[arcilite]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

[wist43]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

So you say you're a "man-made" global warming skeptic... and that is the debate, man-made, but then say it is okay to enact governmental regulations based on some what??? That CO2 is a pollutant???

And then "cap and trade" what???

What your talking about is building a political and governmental boondoggle... layers of bureaucracy greased with corruption... very naive.

The radical left wants governemental control of everything... "global warming" has been a wonderful vehicle to transport them closer to that over riding goal.

At least two generations of kids have been exposed to the lies and propaganda of the global warming crowd; despite having been lied to, however, it is still somehow okay to build the institutions and governemental frame work the leftists who were lying to us in the first place are calling for???

What the hell sense does that make???

[MJZiggy]

Man made or not, I hope you don't like seafood....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122701126.html?hpid=topnews

If you ignore the effects of pollution, stuff dies.

[digitaldean]

Regardless of all of this, we do need to find alternative energy sources that are truly viable.

[MJZiggy]

Amen.

[wist43]

Man made or not, I hope you don't like seafood....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122701126.html?hpid=topnews

If you ignore the effects of pollution, stuff dies.

Hang on a sec...

You're trying to link standing up for telling the truth about global warming, with environmental irresponsibility??? Can't do that. Smacks of McCarthyism... even though I detest the term itself.

Didn't say the first thing about what to do about pollution... and no, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occuring molecule... rising and falling with temperature fluctuations, not the other way around.

The truth is that there is no correlation in the scientific data that an increase in CO2 raises the temp. Beyond that, there is quite a bit of data that shows that CO2 levels tend to follow temp, and global temp fluctuations follow sunspot activity and cosmic dust ratios more than anything else.

Too bad, that back in the middle ages - when it was considerably warmer than it is today - too bad they didn't have the ability to legislate the weather, like we do today.

We're so enlightened... government regulation can solve all our problems - those stupid saps back in the middle ages, all they had to do was pass a law raising fuel efficiency standards :)

[MJZiggy]

I actually wasn't talking to ya, wist. I just didn't feel like starting another thread, so I dumped that in here after arclite mentioned taking care of the planet...

[wist43]

Sorry MJ, mistook your meaning...

[MJZiggy]

No worries, but I really am a fan of crab meat and mussels so I hope they get this problem solved... :(

[texaspackerbacker]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

Your surprisingly rational post--which, of course, runs very contrary to the leftist party line, is greatly appreciated.

Depending on the definition of pollution, I would agree with your conclusion. The large HOWEVER, though, is that placing CO2 emissions on the same level as various REAL chemical pollutants that have come along is bogus science and IMO, politically motivated. DDT, lead, phosphates, sulphur, and a bunch of other contaminants that really did have undeniable harmful effects on the environment have been dealt with effectively without a whole lot of opposition even from those of us who hate government regulation, and without severely harming the economy and lifestyle of Americans and capitalist western civilization in general.

Cap and trade, however, indeed would have a strongly adverse effect on America and on the economic engine that has brought us and much of the rest of the world progress and prosperity. You artificially cripple free enterprise businesses and you take a giant step down the road toward socialism and the kind of squalor and poverty it brings. And the obvious next step beyond driving the world into poverty is loss of freedom and representative government. All you have to do is look at sub-Saharan Africa to see the fruits of that--the horrendous depravity, poverty, etc. resulting from America encouraging socialist dictators in that area prior to 1980, and not doing much to turn things around since that time.

And all of that would be due to the extremely dubious conclusion that manmade CO2 emissions--miniscule in comparison to natural emissions of the same thing--are even harmful.

[bobblehead]

Some people here would call me a 'liberal' because I voted for Obama, but here is my take on global warming/climate change:


I am a skeptic... I don't buy into all the hoo-rah that Al Gore brought to the table. I think the Earth goes through climate changes of its own and we have nothing to deal with them.

With that said.

I don't see what is wrong with regulations to limit pollution. I prefer the cap and trade system, as it seems most efficient.

But even if we have nothing to deal with global warming or climate change.... what is wrong with wanting to limit pollution and take better care of Earth?

There is nothing wrong with limiting pollution. I am all for solar power and nuclear power. I think getting off coal and oil is good. What we can't do is handicap our businesses against the rest of the world by asking them to meet standards other countries won't.

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.

Any cap and trade system would instantly be corrupt and rife with anticapitalism. Guys who get to make decisions would get bought off and companies that otherwise would be superior would be slapped with unreasonable standards. Costs of infrastructure would be too high for private enterprise and big corporations would rule.

The fixes for pollutant energy are coming, we can't make it happen faster. Be patient. As far as labeling you liberal or not, doesn't matter a bit. Stake out your positions, defend them, then let the labels fall where they may.

[MadScientist]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.
Increasing government support of these lines of research (university and industrial via SBIR grants, etc.) would likely speed things up a bit. Programs like cap and trade would do nothing to help technology, but there are useful things that the government can do.

[SkinBasket]

Find a way to put your nanotech solar panels on military hardware and you got your funding.

[Zool]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/57009508_0c4f451dc8.jpg

[texaspackerbacker]

Which one is PIP and which one Ziggy?

[packinpatland]

Which one is PIP and which one Ziggy?

Neither. The one on the right would be your mother, the other two I assume are your sisters.....or brothers? :lol:

[bobblehead]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.
Increasing government support of these lines of research (university and industrial via SBIR grants, etc.) would likely speed things up a bit. Programs like cap and trade would do nothing to help technology, but there are useful things that the government can do.

You mean like gov't support of the human genome? They were predicting another 8 years and private industry one day said "hey, the across the board technology is finally in place, we should be done in 18 months." At this point gov't people scoffed them and derided them. 16 months later the human genome had been decoded by private enterprise.

[MJZiggy]

With or without Federal funding?

[texaspackerbacker]

Which one is PIP and which one Ziggy?

Neither. The one on the right would be your mother, the other two I assume are your sisters.....or brothers? :lol:

Actually, my mother looked a lot like Sarah Palin with lighter hair. I never had any sisters, but it I did, they would have looked like Britney and Paris and my childhood sweetheart, Haley Mills--she and I are the same age.

[packinpatland]

Which one is PIP and which one Ziggy?

Neither. The one on the right would be your mother, the other two I assume are your sisters.....or brothers? :lol:

Actually, my mother looked a lot like Sarah Palin with lighter hair. I never had any sisters, but it I did, they would have looked like Britney and Paris and my childhood sweetheart, Haley Mills--she and I are the same age.

OK........I can dig that.......and I'm a dead ringer for Meryl Streep :lol:

[bobblehead]

With or without Federal funding?

Without, they wanted to hold onto certain intellectual property.

[MadScientist]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.
Increasing government support of these lines of research (university and industrial via SBIR grants, etc.) would likely speed things up a bit. Programs like cap and trade would do nothing to help technology, but there are useful things that the government can do.

You mean like gov't support of the human genome? They were predicting another 8 years and private industry one day said "hey, the across the board technology is finally in place, we should be done in 18 months." At this point gov't people scoffed them and derided them. 16 months later the human genome had been decoded by private enterprise.

Yes, let's look at the human genome project, and what led up to it. The automated seqencing machines were initially developed by Leroy Hood's group at Cal Tech using government funding. The shotgun sequencing techniques used by Celera were greatly advanced by government sponsored projects to sequence H. influenzae, E. coli and others.

Also the public HGP did publish an initial draft first, and the availability of the data in Genbank (another government program) is a tremendous boon for researchers.

[bobblehead]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable. He says certain nanotechnology designs will have solar ahead of oil and coal in 5-7 years. Gov't can't speed that up, public pressure and private enterprise desiring to can.
Increasing government support of these lines of research (university and industrial via SBIR grants, etc.) would likely speed things up a bit. Programs like cap and trade would do nothing to help technology, but there are useful things that the government can do.

You mean like gov't support of the human genome? They were predicting another 8 years and private industry one day said "hey, the across the board technology is finally in place, we should be done in 18 months." At this point gov't people scoffed them and derided them. 16 months later the human genome had been decoded by private enterprise.

Yes, let's look at the human genome project, and what led up to it. The automated seqencing machines were initially developed by Leroy Hood's group at Cal Tech using government funding. The shotgun sequencing techniques used by Celera were greatly advanced by government sponsored projects to sequence H. influenzae, E. coli and others.

Also the public HGP did publish an initial draft first, and the availability of the data in Genbank (another government program) is a tremendous boon for researchers.

Your missing my point. The technology to crack it wasn't caught up across the board but sitll gov't was pounding money into it. Sure they had a few success stories, but even then they were on record as saying its 8 years away. When certain necessary technologies (private no less) caught up the rest of the project was slammed out in 16 months.

If your point is that sometimes gov't accomplishes things (more expensively) then I concur. If its in any way that gov't can do it faster/better/cheaper then I would say you are off your rocker. The only projects gov't is better at is ones where private industry has no interest/incentive to get involved.

[MadScientist]

Your missing my point. The technology to crack it wasn't caught up across the board but sitll gov't was pounding money into it. Sure they had a few success stories, but even then they were on record as saying its 8 years away. When certain necessary technologies (private no less) caught up the rest of the project was slammed out in 16 months.

If your point is that sometimes gov't accomplishes things (more expensively) then I concur. If its in any way that gov't can do it faster/better/cheaper then I would say you are off your rocker. The only projects gov't is better at is ones where private industry has no interest/incentive to get involved.

You're missing my point. Because government was willing to put in money before the technology was ready was one of the driving forces to get the technology to be ready. Without all the government money buying the ABI 377 machines, the 3700 would not have come out when it did. Without that, there is no Celera project. If you fund research, you get technology. Either directly, in the case of the original research that lead to automated sequencing machines, or indirectly by becoming a large consumer of sequencing machines, leading to better machines.

[bobblehead]

Your missing my point. The technology to crack it wasn't caught up across the board but sitll gov't was pounding money into it. Sure they had a few success stories, but even then they were on record as saying its 8 years away. When certain necessary technologies (private no less) caught up the rest of the project was slammed out in 16 months.

If your point is that sometimes gov't accomplishes things (more expensively) then I concur. If its in any way that gov't can do it faster/better/cheaper then I would say you are off your rocker. The only projects gov't is better at is ones where private industry has no interest/incentive to get involved.

You're missing my point. Because government was willing to put in money before the technology was ready was one of the driving forces to get the technology to be ready. Without all the government money buying the ABI 377 machines, the 3700 would not have come out when it did. Without that, there is no Celera project. If you fund research, you get technology. Either directly, in the case of the original research that lead to automated sequencing machines, or indirectly by becoming a large consumer of sequencing machines, leading to better machines.

So why aren't we funding research into immortality...I want to live forever...who doesn't? If we can simply throw money at it and it will come to fruition then we should be doing that.

[MJZiggy]

We are silly. Are we not throwing funding at every disease that kills people and attempting to slow down aging at the same time? We already live far longer than previous generations and except for the fact that people eat like crap and don't take care of ourselves like we know we should, the life expectancy would still be going up. Have you had your probiotics today?

[bobblehead]

We are silly. Are we not throwing funding at every disease that kills people and attempting to slow down aging at the same time? We already live far longer than previous generations and except for the fact that people eat like crap and don't take care of ourselves like we know we should, the life expectancy would still be going up. Have you had your probiotics today?

I'm pretty sure that 95% of that is being funded by PRIVATE enterprise.

[MJZiggy]

Source? I'm thinking much of that research is done by NIH as I recently heard a speech given by one of the docs from their speakers bureau about what they know about taking care of ourselves. He seemed to have a clue, though he needed to dumb it down for the non-scientists in the office.

I mean the Alzheimer's people are going absolutely crazy about their govt. funding being reduced as they have new drugs they're working on and the AIDS people are panicking because the government wants to focus research dollars elsewhere...

Which private company was it that has made cancer much less fatal than it was a couple decades back?

[texaspackerbacker]

It's the best of both worlds--or the worst, depending on your point of view.

Most research and advances indeed are done by private business. Those businesses, however, get a lot of government grants. Thus, even though the government has a hand in it, the "intellectual property" thing still stays with the companies doing the research. If not for that system, there would be a lot less incentive to succeed.

[bobblehead]

Source? I'm thinking much of that research is done by NIH as I recently heard a speech given by one of the docs from their speakers bureau about what they know about taking care of ourselves. He seemed to have a clue, though he needed to dumb it down for the non-scientists in the office.

I mean the Alzheimer's people are going absolutely crazy about their govt. funding being reduced as they have new drugs they're working on and the AIDS people are panicking because the government wants to focus research dollars elsewhere...

Which private company was it that has made cancer much less fatal than it was a couple decades back?

Don't have time to drudge up numbers atm, but I will work at it. I have been advocating immortality (yes, I know, I'm a loon) since around 1997 when the telomere decaying was found as a major reason for cells losing the ability to divide.

Several keynote guys like Ray Kurzweil, Aubrey de Grey and Michael Rose have been working at it. The amount of money the gov't actually puts into it isn't that much. I'm talking actually ending aging as a disease, not controlling symptoms as most of that is handled by big evil pharma. Anyway, gotta get in the shower, but I love the immortality (or immorality typos) sublject and will gladly put a lot of time into any such thread.

If you are interested start with Ray Kurzweils book..."Live Long Enough to Live Forever"

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable.

Kurzweil is no scientiest.

[bobblehead]

There is a very famous scientist named Ray Kurzweil that insists solar is becoming very viable.

Kurzweil is no scientiest.

I guess it depends on how you define "scientist". I consider a guy who has a CS degree from MIT a scientist. A guy who has invented things from text to speech recognition software to predicting within a month when a computer would beat the worlds best chess player from 10 years out.

A guy of his intellect who studies things like reverse engineering of the brain and nanotechnology designs of solar panels.

A guy who won The 1994 Dickson Prize in Science. One is awarded every year by Carnegie Mellon University to individuals who have "notably advanced the field of science. He won The 1998 "Inventor of the Year" award from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bill Clinton presented him the National Medal of Technology.

And this off of Wikipedia: (and yes they are honorary...as in he didn't put time in a classroom and earn credits....he is way beyond that)

Honorary Doctorate of Science Northeastern University 1988
Honorary Doctorate of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1988
Honorary Doctorate of Engineering Merrimack College 1989
Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters Misericordia University 1989
Honorary Doctorate of Science New Jersey Institute of Technology 1990
Honorary Doctorate of Science Queens College, City University of New York 1991
Honorary Doctorate of Science Dominican College 1993
Honorary Doctorate in Science and Humanities Michigan State University 2000
Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters Landmark College 2002
Honorary Doctorate of Science Worcester Polytechnic Institute 2005
Honorary Doctorate of Science DePaul University 2006
Honorary Doctorate of Science Bloomfield College 2007
Honorary Doctorate of Science McGill University 2008

I know you like to push buttons and make one little comment to try and rile people up, and I should have ignored you, but honestly....is Ray Kurzweil someone you would call a scientist?? Or would you rather mince words and call him a technologist?

but hey, what do all those guys know about science...much better qualifications would be the gynocologist (scientist) who signed Al Gores document on global warming.

edit: I almost forgot your favorite saying..."Game, Set Match"

[mraynrand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

[wist43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

You're missing the point... scientific truth be damned - we must do something!!!!!

Anything!!!!!

I know, let's create layer upon layer of government to regulate all human activity - effectively enslaving mankind if a world wide green gulag :)

[Kiwon]

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

[bobblehead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

fucking deniers!!