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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
307
Yury Izrael, the director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and UN IPCC Vice President, rejected man-made global warming fears. "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming," Izrael, who also served as former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization, wrote on June 23, 2005 in RIA Novosti. "Global temperatures increased throughout the 1940s, declined in the 1970s and subsequently began to rise again. Present-day global warming resembles the 1940s, when ships could easily navigate Arctic passages. However, man's impact was much smaller at that time. A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease. These sensational findings are one of Mother Nature's surprises," Izrael wrote. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 PPM (parts per million air molecules) in 1880, and now stands at 378 PPM. It has increased by 31% since the pre-industrial era. This is quite a lot, but temperatures have increased by only 0.6 degrees. Paradoxically, temperatures tended to rise by one to 12 degrees at peak intervals, with carbon-dioxide fluctuations totaling not more than 300 PPM. This contradiction is rather baffling. Therefore I believe that the link between man's activities and rising temperatures has not been proved completely. Natural factors and the impact of man seem to be interlinked," he added. "The European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 PPM (in Carboniferous period). But life still goes on," he concluded. (LINK)

In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."

A simple question does not get asked: What part of the warming and cooling period since 1850 is natural?

The first two warmings could not be related to human additions of CO2 from industry, hence why wouldn't the 1976-1998 warming also be due to natural process?

Why do you not trust the competence of meteorologists, who forecast the weather sometimes incorrectly and sometime correctly, to sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly judge the evidence for human caused CO2 increases in the atmosphere?

You of course realize that medical doctors sometimes diagnose human illnesses incorrectly and sometime correctly.

The Clean Air Act Extension of 1970 (84 Stat. 1676, Public Law 91-604) is a United States federal law that requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. This law is an amendment to the Clean Air Act (CAA) originally passed in 1963. It is sometimes called the Muskie Act because of the central role Maine Senator Edmund Muskie played in drafting the content of the bill. [1]

"Please treat this information as sensitive ... we don't want critics to know our game plan."

A leaked memo sent by an oil industry group reveals a plan to create astroturf rallies at which industry employees posing as "citizens" will urge Congress to oppose climate change legislation.

The memo -- sent by the American Petroleum Institute and obtained by Greenpeace, which sent it to reporters -- urges oil companies to recruit their employees for events that will "put a human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," and will urge senators to "avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill."
API tells TPMmuckraker that the campaign is being funded by a coalition of corporate and conservative groups that includes the anti-health-care-reform group 60 Plus, FreedomWorks, and Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform.

The memo, signed by API president Jack Gerard, asks recipients to give API "the name of one central coordinator for your company's involvement in the rallies."

And it warns: "Please treat this information as sensitive ... we don't want critics to know our game plan."

Aside from the astroturf nature of the planned events, which appear aimed at passing off industry employees as independent citizens, the memo also raises questions about the positions of several major oil companies on the issue of climate change. BP and Shell both are members of API, and also of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of groups that supports Waxman-Markey, the very climate change legislation the memo criticizes.

API has spent over $3 million lobbying against that bill this year.

A leaked memo sent by an oil industry group reveals a plan to create astroturf rallies at which industry employees posing as "citizens" will urge Congress to oppose climate change legislation.

Quote:

The Clean Air Act Extension of 1970 (84 Stat. 1676, Public Law 91-604) is a United States federal law that requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. This law is an amendment to the Clean Air Act (CAA) originally passed in 1963. It is sometimes called the Muskie Act because of the central role Maine Senator Edmund Muskie played in drafting the content of the bill. [1]


It seems in the US, laws were passed to prevent this from happening.

My comments were about man made CO2 and global warming, not about local air pollution in cities, but it is typical of the doomsters when their predictions have been shown to be wrong, they then claim their warnings have been headed.

I wonder how these fellows got it so wrong ???

parados ?

Quote:

In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."

Walter, no they didn't publish names as far as I know, but my point is they were taken to be eminent scientists of the day as are the current ones forecasting doom and gloom. They were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

Walter, no they didn't publish names as far as I know, but my point is they were taken to be eminent scientists of the day as are the current ones forecasting doom and gloom. They were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
308
Chemist Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, rejected the notion that "the vast majority" of scientists believe in man-made global warming. "The truth about this is the opposite; most scientists do not," Kauffman wrote on September 7, 2007. "CO2 can hardly have been the cause of warming because its level in air has been higher than it is now at least 3 times between 1812 and 1962 as shown by 90,000 direct chemical measurements (Beck, E.-G., 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment, 2007, 18(2), 259-282). Further, there is no recent correlation between CO2 levels and atmospheric temps as you may see easily from a NOAA graph," he wrote. "With an allowance for such urban heat island effects, the global temperature rise from 1905-1940 was similar to the one from 1970-2003 (www.giss.nasa.gov). Dr. Hansen's flawed USA ground station temps from 2000-2006 needed a Y2K correction provided by the Canadian Steve McIntyre showing that 1934 was the warmest year of the last 100, not 1998 or 2006," he concluded. (LINK)