Heretics: Dissenters in the Church of Global Warming

[Kiwon]

52 vs. 400

52 scientists wrote the final U.N. report preaching that the world is coming to an end due to human activity harming the climate. The U.N., Al Gore and the media say that there is a "consensus" among scientists.

More than 400 other scientists disagree, however, and are not afraid to say so.
.................................................. ............................................

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.

There is no consensus regarding mankind's role in Global Warming (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report)

[the_idle_threat]

I for one am glad for global warming. Without it, this whole area of the American continent would still be buried under glacial ice, and I'll bet the Packers would have played even worse in those conditions last Sunday. Thank goodness the dinosuars drove SUVs! :P

[coolman3]

In the Terminator movies judgement day was inevitable. But thanks to the "good" Terminator, who was sent back in time to protect John Connor, mankind was able to prolong the "beginning of the end."

The fall of mankind by the force of global warming was inevitable the very instant some capitalist in England decided to revolt against agricultural societies throughout the world, and thus, began the industrial revolution. But thanks to men like Al Gore, mankind has two CHOICES: prolong the inevitable by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions, or speed up the inevitable by continuing to darken the lungs of mother nature.

[Kiwon]

Coolman3, how did you come to the determination that Earth's destruction by human development is inevitable?

[coolman3]

Coolman3, how did you come to the determination that Earth's destruction by human development is inevitable?

Well...aside from Global Warming, we also have nuclear weapons. Not sure where I read it, but I think I read a theory somewhere about the destruction of mankind due to both gw and nw (time magazine?). It goes something like this: Global warming takes a toll on the earth, glaciers melt, lands are flooded, there is famine and shortage of drinkable water. as a result, the majority of the world population is whipped out, the few surviving nations compete with each other for earth's remaining natural resources (food, water, etc) through warfare, in war, nuclear weapons are used, eventually mankind suffers the same fate that the dinosaurs did: extinction.

As the universe continues to expend, human beings continue to progress. IMO, just as we are capable of destroying ourselves, we are just as capable of saving each other.

[the_idle_threat]

Sounds like the backstory for a sci-fi flick.

[MJZiggy]

Dunno, I do know that when I was a kid, southern Wisconsin was continually buried in a foot of snow from November until April which never completely melted. I hear that's not the case anymore. I've heard that the tundra is much more tolerable than it used to be. Whether that's man-made remains to be seen, but to my mind, even if the global warming proponents are wrong, what's the harm in leaving a smaller footprint? Because if they're the ones that are right, we have a problem.

[Kiwon]

So MJZ how much in new taxes are you willing to pay and to what extent are you willing to change your current lifestyle in order to possibly create an impact on something that you probably have no connection with and really isn't the severe problem that many are predicting?

The politicians are waiting for your answer.

[Kiwon]

Coolman3, how did you come to the determination that Earth's destruction by human development is inevitable?

As the universe continues to expend, human beings continue to progress. IMO, just as we are capable of destroying ourselves, we are just as capable of saving each other.

So which is it, destruction is inevitable or mankind has the capacity to save the human race?

You can't have it both ways.

[Scott Campbell]

Is it too late to blame humans for the Ice Age?

[MJZiggy]

So MJZ how much in new taxes are you willing to pay and to what extent are you willing to change your current lifestyle in order to possibly create an impact on something that you probably have no connection with and really isn't the severe problem that many are predicting?

The politicians are waiting for your answer.

Why do we need to pay so much in new taxes? I drive a fuel efficient car, bundle my errands, don't use air conditioning, recycle all my paper and cardboard, cans, jars, etc, use the woodstove to offset the natural gas furnace and make as little trash as possible including paying attention to the packaging of the products I buy. Short of going solar (and trust me, the ex considered it), I think we're doing fairly well here and my lifestyle hasn't been compromised. There's only so much each of us can do, but it's better than throwing up our hands and jumping into the SUV for a joyride. And remember, if you're wrong...

[Kiwon]

So MJZ how much in new taxes are you willing to pay and to what extent are you willing to change your current lifestyle in order to possibly create an impact on something that you probably have no connection with and really isn't the severe problem that many are predicting?

The politicians are waiting for your answer.

Why do we need to pay so much in new taxes?

Because you are a citizen of the number one global villain in the world - the United States, according to the Church of Global Warming.

The "consensus" has decreed that American productivity and industry is scientifically linked to the destruction of the planet. Therefore, you must pay for your wasteful arrogance. Remember: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." (Robert Blake as "Baretta")

California has already imposed a tax related to climate change and believe me, the "true believers" in various state legislatures are just waiting for enough people to get on board so that they can enact new policies to force you to change your lifestyle via taxation in order to save mankind from oblivion.

This is why exposing this lie about a "scientific consensus" is important.

[The Leaper]

All it will take is ONE major volcanic eruption to lower global temperatures several degrees across the globe. Just because we haven't had a major volcanic event like that for several hundred years doesn't mean it isn't going to happen ever again.

The earth has regulated its temperature pretty damn well long before Al Gore and his oily hair got involved. I expect the earth will continue to do so long after Al Gore's greasy hair has been eaten by worms.

[GoPackGo]

All it will take is ONE major volcanic eruption to lower global temperatures several degrees across the globe. Just because we haven't had a major volcanic event like that for several hundred years doesn't mean it isn't going to happen ever again.

The earth has regulated its temperature pretty damn well long before Al Gore and his oily hair got involved. I expect the earth will continue to do so long after Al Gore's greasy hair has been eaten by worms.

Amen brother

[Cheesehead Craig]

As George Carlin put it:

"The Earth doesn't need saving, the planet is fine; it's the people that are in trouble."

[packinpatland]

I watched White Christmas last night.
68 degrees in Vermont in Dec................were they even thinking global warming almost 54 years ago?

[coolman3]

So which is it, destruction is inevitable or mankind has the capacity to save the human race?

You can't have it both ways.

Destruction is inevitable. But mankind, through advances in science and technology, has the capacity to prolong it.

[the_idle_threat]

Why would mankind wanna prolong the destruction? :P Not that I doubt we'd do it, by the way ...

[Kiwon]

MAJOR BUMP

Break out the parkas. The temps are going down.

First, Brett Farve (allegedly) rats out the beloved Pack and now Al Gore could be, probably is (and always has been) WRONG!!!!

Where have all the heroes gone?

Brett, QT. Al Gore, you fraud, QT. McCain, QT about man-made climate change. UN, disappear. Barack America, er..Senator Government, uh..Messiah, your ocean lowering, planet healing powers may not be required. Thanks for the offer though.

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

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
October 20, 2008

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.
lgunter@shaw.ca

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

[oregonpackfan]

All it will take is ONE major volcanic eruption to lower global temperatures several degrees across the globe. Just because we haven't had a major volcanic event like that for several hundred years doesn't mean it isn't going to happen ever again.

The earth has regulated its temperature pretty damn well long before Al Gore and his oily hair got involved. I expect the earth will continue to do so long after Al Gore's greasy hair has been eaten by worms.

Up until the recent past years, the Earth did not have to support 6 billion people.

Even as late as 1900, the Earth's population was just one billion people.

[SkinBasket]

What was the dinosaur population at the height of the Cretaceous period?

[hoosier]

What was the dinosaur population at the height of the Cretaceous period?

Whatever answer you find, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Census studies were notoriously flawed in that period.

[SkinBasket]

What was the dinosaur population at the height of the Cretaceous period?

Whatever answer you find, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Census studies were notoriously flawed in that period.

As flawed as temperature data from the same time?

[mraynrand]

Science isn't supposed to be a popularity contest. Very few scientific discoveries are made by consensus opinion.

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224541974&sr=8-1