Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. ..
The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments....
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

What scientists were contacted?

How many?

Who were they?

Was it phrased that mankind has any effect on global warming or significant effect on global warming?

And of course those damn meteorologists. They certainly haven't studied or know anything about climate.

Quote:

And of course those damn meteorologists. They certainly haven't studied or know anything about climate.

But those economists, aquarium managers and mathematicians certainly have...

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

237
Dr. Richard Tol, the director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, and a prominent economist with Hamburg University in Germany, dismissed the UN IPCC touted Stern Report on the economics of climate change as "preposterous." Tol, one of the authors of three of the IPCC Working Groups, dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming, according a February 2, 2007 article in Canada's National Post. "Tol doesn't think the evidence is in on global warming and its effects, he doesn't think there's reason to rush to action, and he doesn't think that crash programs to curb global warming are called for," the National Post article explained. Tol debunked the Stern review as "alarmist and incompetent." "There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously," according to Tol. "We've got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into 'actionism,' which then becomes very expensive," he concluded. Tol wrote the critique despite the fact that his work was cited by the Stern Report no less than 63 times. (LINK) In a separate November 11, 2006 interview, Tol specifically critiqued the UN IPCC process. “Over the years, the IPCC has become ever greener and the few economists, who were previously involved, have been pushed out. Obviously, this casts doubt on the quality of the results,” Tol explained. (LINK) Tol has also asserted that the benefits of a warmer world are frequently overlooked. Tol noted that "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu,” according to a May 7, 2007 article in Der Spiegel.

238
Dr. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling, has presented evidence that Antarctic ice is growing. According to a December 15, 2006 article in Canada's National Post, "Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming." "One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labeled 'the contribution of anthropogenic warming,' " Wingham said, noting that the evidence is not "favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming." Wingham and his colleagues found that 72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass of Antarctica is growing at the rate of 5 millimeters per year. "That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will ‘lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm' per year" the National Post article reported. (LINK) Wingham also co-authored a March 2007 review of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets which found that the current “best estimate” of the contribution of polar ice loss to global sea level rise is 0.35 millimeters per year or less than an inch and a half over a century. (LINK) In a March 16, 2007 interview, Wingham further explained, "Most people don't realize that Antarctica is so cold there isn't much melting going on.” (LINK) In 2005, Wingham emphasized the uncertainty of blaming polar ice reductions on human activity. “One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labeled 'the contribution of anthropogenic warming,'" Wingham said. (LINK) Wingham has also asserted, “There’s a tendency today to associate every change that one sees in the ice on the planet with global warming. Almost certainly some of the changes are nothing to do with global warming at all but are connected with natural variability in the climate system.” Wingham, the lead investigator on the UK-led Cryosat spacecraft mission to monitor ice sheets, added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Cryosat will increase the confusion rather than decrease it, because we will start to see natural processes in the climate system that we don’t see today.”

239
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the website "CO2 Science" was established to debunk man-made climate fears. An April 11, 2007 report noted that current temperatures in Southern Greenland are "1.5°C colder than the peak warmth of Medieval Times." (LINK) A June 6, 2007 scientific report by the Center also debunked many of NASA's James Hansen's climate claims by finding "very little evidence to justify [Hansen's] policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a ‘dangerous climate change.'" (LINK) The website, run by three scientists, agronomist Dr. Craig Idso, physicist Dr. Sherwood Idso, and botanist Keith Idso, documents the scientific evidence countering warming fears and offers evidence that the Earth was as warm or warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. The "Medieval Warm Period Project's" goal is to show that "approximately one thousand years ago, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was approximately 25% lower than it is currently, earth's near-surface air temperature was equally as warm as, or even warmer than, it is today, demonstrating that today's temperatures are not unnatural and need not be due to the historical rise in the air's CO2 content." Scientific supporters of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global change include: Climate expert Donald G. Baker of the University of Minnesota; Biologist W. Dennis Clark of Arizona State University; Chemist Alan Moghissi of the Institute for Regulatory Science; Meteorologist William E. Reifsnyder (Deceased); Physics professor Clinton H. Sheehan of Ouachita Baptist University in Arkansas; Zoologist Kenneth E. F. Watt; and Horticulturist Sylvan H. Wittwer of the Michigan State University.

240
Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action and creator of the solar-particle based "Solar Weather Technique" of long range weather forecasting, noted the UN's IPCC fourth assessment had a "serious misrepresentation of solar activity in the Report." Corbyn also ridiculed the idea that the IPCC summary for policymakers was written by 2500 of the worlds "leading scientists" and said IPCC should instead be called a "The IPCC Report by appointees of many governments." "In fact the report is drafted and finalized by appointees of Governments who may have little or no expertise in many of the wide ranging fields covered. It should further be noted that the many scientists who undertake diligent measurement and observational or estimation work which is used to indirectly support the report conclusions have generally no expertise or locus around the key subject on which the findings of the report are actually based, namely ‘Climate Models.' This is the preserve of only a handful of people who generally are in government funded institutions rather than more independent bodies," Corbyn wrote in an open letter to UK government officials on February 11, 2007. "Perhaps the phrase ‘The (IPCC) Report by appointees of many governments' would be fairer and should be insisted on, and would not incorrectly imply informed confirmed agreement from many scientists whose work, however excellent, does no such thing," Corbyn concluded. (LINK) Corbyn also debunked a 2007 widely publicized no solar-climate link study on July 20, 2007. "In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) cherry-pick data themselves. Professor Lockwood's ‘refutation' of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world's temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun's activity. So what does he do? He ‘finds' that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?" Corbyn wrote.

Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said development of solar and wind facilities in California's Mojave Desert would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public

AP
Saturday, March 21, 2009

California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.

Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.

Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.

More here. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/

Friday, March 20, 2009
Human sacrifices to climate god
Some scientists are skeptical about the apocalypse prophesied by blithering alarmists.
Jay Ambrose
Syndicated columnist

Back in 1500, we learn from a Princeton professor, the Aztecs figured the climate debate was over, and that if you wanted rain and sunshine and other such blessings, it was simple enough what you had to do " sacrifice 20,000 lives a year to the right gods.

In the year 2009, it's an equally sure thing in the minds of some that carbon in the atmosphere is going to fry us unless we put the welfare of millions on the line, and here is the latest on President Obama's plan " it could cost industry almost $2 trillion over an eight-year period.

That hefty sum to be paid out to a cap-and-trade carbon tax would snatch money from the pockets of consumers far more than rising oil prices did, hinder economic growth and instill other ways generate human misery, and all in the name of what? Computer models that can't get anything right, that's what.

Scientists feed tons of data into these simulating computers, and " given the doomsday theory animating the enterprise " it shouldn't surprise anyone that catastrophic warming is a calculation that then emerges. The problem is that all kinds of stuff is left out because there is an awful lot we do not know.

"Over the past 10 years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling," physicist William Happer recently told a Senate committee. "This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models," he said, referring to the computer conclusions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Happer does not deny that the earth is warming, that increased amounts of carbon dioxide are being pumped into the atmosphere, that there is in fact something you can call a greenhouse effect or that the leveling temperatures of the past decade are still pretty high.

He seriously doubts, however, that there's a scientific consensus on a disastrous outcome or that carbon dioxide is anywhere near the villain it's made out to be.

A professor at Princeton " the same one who made the observation about the Aztecs " Happer told senators that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, that it is crucial to life and that it is a "bit player" in the atmosphere.

He said at least "90 percent of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor," and that the issue is whether the carbon dioxide will "substantially increase water's contribution" to causing something awful.

The evidence from measurements of all kinds is that it won't, said Happer, pointing out that "the current warming period began about 1800, at the end of the little ice age," when there wasn't a big increase in carbon dioxide.

It wasn't fossil fuels that did the warming deed " a good deed, by the way " and a war against these energy-producing, societal benefactors would therefore be as futile in controlling climate as slicing open bodies with a ceremonial knife and ripping out hearts.

Happer is far from the only reputable scientist out there who is a skeptic about the coming apocalypse.

But what if these skeptics are wrong? If there is a possibility of error, some argue, we should err on the side of safety " we should have those carbon taxes " and that might be true if a carbon tax was not itself a powerful peril and if it was not pretty clear by now that we are putting global-warming garbage into computers, getting garbage out of them and that some are then treating that garbage like a god.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/carbon-warming-dioxide-2340603-happer-atmosphere

Try this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w&feature=related