U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

[Peikko 1,575]

No, not again, back damn troll!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This whole debate is really misrepresented in my view. But again its not unlike the creationism/evolution debate - it seems that nothing less than absolute, 101% black and white conclusive proof is required to make anyone do anything whatsoever about it.

Round and round in circles.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Number 6

[Peikko 1,575]

Trip up the Northwest passage anyone? I'm going to organise tourist trips.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

[mawilson 2,133]

400 prominent scientists? Impossible. I bet Big Oil funded this so-called "research."

There is a consensus in the scientific community that not only does global warming

exist, but it is also man-made. CONSENSUS, people! You can't argue with CONSENSUS!

[eric&gen 0]

Here we go another Global Warming thread lets make off topic to global warming and illegal aliens lolololol.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

400 prominent scientists? Impossible. I bet Big Oil funded this so-called "research."

There is a consensus in the scientific community that not only does global warming

exist, but it is also man-made. CONSENSUS, people! You can't argue with CONSENSUS!

Well... consensus does not exactly mean unanimity.

But again its bad enough that we pick apart isolated pieces of research with a more or less untrained eye, and being largely ignorant of what work is being done, where and by whom; but now we have to double-politicise the terms of reference.

Anyone have any aspirin?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Trip up the Northwest passage anyone? I'm going to organise tourist trips.

Did the Northwest passage exist some time in the past? That's a big, fat YES.

[LuzyC 0]

Darn it! Sorry.

Edited December 20, 2007 by LuzyC

[GaryC 7]

Back in the 70's there was a consensus that we were heading to a global ice age. It's time for some to realize something. Just because a majority of scientists agree does not make it true. At one time there was a consensus that the earth was flat. They also were sure that the earth was the center of the universe. These scientists also thought the earth was 6 thousand years old. Just because there is a consensus does not mean it's right. Man made GW is the same. They took the data they had at the time and made a theory. Soon that theory became the consensus. Now new data is coming to lite that is disproving that theory. Anyone that will not even listen to the possibility that that theory is wrong has other motives for hanging onto that flawed idea.

[GaryC 7]

Trip up the Northwest passage anyone? I'm going to organise tourist trips.

Did the Northwest passage exist some time in the past? That's a big, fat YES.

Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace

The Daily Green ^ | December 12, 2007 | Dan Shapely

Posted on 12/12/2007 9:39:24 AM PST by america4vr

The record melting of Arctic sea ice observed this summer and fall led to record-low levels of ice in both September and October, but a record-setting pace of re-freezing in November, according to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record.

Still, the extent of sea ice recorded in November was well shy of the median extent observed over the past quarter century, as the image from Nov. 14 (above, right) shows. The dramatic increase in ice is evident, when compared to the record-low amount observed Sept. 16 (below, right). In both images, 100% sea ice is shown in white, and the yellow line encompasses the area ion which there was at least 15% ice cover in at least half of the 25-year record for the given month.

The record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely viewed as a harbinger of global warming, though unusual wind patterns played a role and many factors affecting fluctuations in Arctic ice are poorly understood by scientists. The area of persistent open water north of Alaska and eastern Siberia, according to NASA, is unusual for this time of year, though not unprecedented. This area was also largely free of ice in November 2002 and especially November 2006.

Here's how NASA explains the record re-growth of ice over that 10-day period in October and November:

Record sea ice growth rates after a record low may sound surprising at first, but it is not completely unexpected. The more ice that survives the summer melt, the less open water there is for new ice to grow.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938451/posts

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Darn it! Sorry.

i get a kick outta that.

[Peikko 1,575]

No one said it didn't exist before, however, it has been largely inaccessible because of all the ice, which is now melting because???

Of course, the passage has long been eyed as a nice resource, that it might open up to commercial traffic and exploitation might just explain why no one seems too concerned that this Arctic sea ice is significantly thinning and reducing in size.

Of course, no one really knows what the effects of these things are long term. How much this would/could effect the world in terms of human habitation. However, that it will have an effect there is no doubt and some things have already been irrevocably lost whether or not anyone believes they had any significant value.

http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

[GaryC 7]

No one said it didn't exist before, however, it has been largely inaccessible because of all the ice, which is now melting because???

Of course, the passage has long been eyed as a nice resource, that it might open up to commercial traffic and exploitation might just explain why no one seems too concerned that this Arctic sea ice is significantly thinning and reducing in size.

Of course, no one really knows what the effects of these things are long term. How much this would/could effect the world in terms of human habitation. However, that it will have an effect there is no doubt and some things have already been irrevocably lost whether or not anyone believes they had any significant value.

http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml

Who is to say a warmer planet wouldn't be better for us to live on? The point of all this is the planets climate changes all the time. It did it before we were here and it will do it long after we are gone. It's arrogant to think we can change that.