PUBLIC VASTLY MISINFORMED ON GLOBAL WARMING

[GaryC 7]

Oh baby! I wish I had found this one first. PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS ONE!!! I would love to see you debunk and discredit this!!

Contact: MARC MORANO (202) 224-5762 (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov), MATT DEMPSEY (202) 224-9797 (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov)

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 17, 2006

Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/doss....asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html

Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.

Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/pu...ry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.

'Climate Change is Nothing New'

In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101500672.html

Global Cooling on the Horizon?

In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Sun’s Contribution to Warming

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml

“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

“Global?" Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming

In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming. See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern...res-global.html

Alaska Cooling

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.” See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases...noaa06-065.html

Oceans Cooling

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/

Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter

Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006’s surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year’s winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.

Droughts Less Frequent

Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming “shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.” http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...re-the-droughts

Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age

Furthermore, recent research has shown that fears that global warming could lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow” are also unsupportable. A 2005 media hyped study “claimed to have found a 30 percent slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, the results are published in the very prestigious Nature magazine, and the story was carried breathlessly by the media in outlets around the world…Less than a year later, two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,” according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the website World Climate Report. See: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ning-ocean-hype

‘Hockey Stick’ Broken in 2006

The “Hockey Stick” temperature graph’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=257697

Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing

A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V8/N44/C1.jsp Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.

Polar Bears Not Going Extinct

Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media’s unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism

As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA’s James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...9/N39/EDITB.jsp Hansen’s increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of “extreme scenarios” was an appropriate tactic to drive the public’s attention to the urgency of global warming. See: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz’s Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” See: http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

American People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism

The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media’s unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.

“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific ‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=264616

“The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,” Senator Inhofe explained.

Eco-Doomsayers’ Failed Predictions

In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster made by environmental alarmists.

“The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict,” Senator Inhofe said on September 25th. See: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Related Links:

For a comprehensive review of the media’s embarrassing 100-year history of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming, see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe’s September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism. Go to: (epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)

To read and watch Senator Inhofe on CNN discuss global warming go to: (http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308 )

To Read all of Senator Inhofe’s Speeches on global warming go to: (http://epw.senate.gov/speeches.cfm?party=rep)

“Inhofe Correct On Global Warming,” by David Deming geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org), and an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264537)

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Edited December 8, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[GaryC 7]

And here is yet another one. I could go on and on but I am sure your only going to ignore or scoff at anything that does not agree with your doom and gloom, the world is ending idea.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

See also:

The Gods must be laughing

A sample of experts’ comments about the science of “An Inconvenient Truth”:

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. ####### Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[Heracles 417]

Someone needs to turn down the Sun....maybe we can sue

:lol:

[Dean iWait 0]

NCPA, Cooler Heads Coalition. Look them up. Somebody clearly has an agenda...

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that develops and promotes private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cent...Policy_Analysis

People For the American Way (PFAW) is a liberal/progressive advocacy organization in the United States. Under U.S. tax code, PFAW is organized as a tax-exempt 501©(4) non-profit organization. The current president of PFAW is Ralph Neas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way

Yeah clearly someone has an agenda. Like actually letting scientists who disagree with the whole global warming theory have a forum. Oh no! Some liberal left wing organization said they are a right wing think tank. LOL!!! Imagine that. Nice try though.

Dean, find me a reputable scientific journal that refutes what the rest of the scientific community is saying? A think tank does NOT count. We didn't arrive to this day and age, with all the modern technology because scientists are bozos. Give credit where credit is due...damn.

Really?? Apparently their members do. The scientist who spoke on their behalf is a geophysicist and professor at the University of Oklahoma. And if you want to actually read what I posted he has had articles on global warining published in the scientific journal Science. And since when is science about "concensus"? Isn't science about proving your theory is factual and not "concensus"? Did Newton need "concensus" to prove his theory on gravity? Or did he prove it by supplying facts? You might want to follow your own advice and give credit where credit is due.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Dean iWait

[Dean iWait 0]

And here is yet another one. I could go on and on but I am sure your only going to ignore or scoff at anything that does not agree with your doom and gloom, the world is ending idea.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

See also:

The Gods must be laughing

A sample of experts’ comments about the science of “An Inconvenient Truth”:

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. ####### Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Damn Gary 2 posts and you scared everyone away! Steven..?? ET-US 2004...?? Where are you guys?? Come on back.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Global Warming 101

Building on earlier climate science work by William Herschel, John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier, investigations regarding humans' role in global warming began in 1896, when Nobel Prize-winning physicist Svante Arrhenius examined contributions of carbon dioxide emissions to increases in atmospheric temperature. In the 1930s, meteorologist G.S. Callendar gathered temperature records from more than 200 weather stations around the world and attributed temperature increases to greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass' research on atmospheric CO2 and infrared radiation absorption added to a growing scientific consensus that humans contribute to global warming. In 1956, Plass announced that human activities were raising the average global temperature.

Also, beginning in 1958, Charles David Keeling began to document atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. His findings of a dramatic increase in CO2—referred to as the "Keeling Curve"—are considered some of the most important long-term data relating to humans' role in global warming. Additionally, 1966 and 1977 United States National Academy of Sciences reports made clear links between human activities and global warming.

NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 testimony to the U.S. Congress marked solidified scientific concern for human-caused global warming. He said he was "99 percent certain" that warmer temperatures were caused by the burning of fossil fuels and not solely a result of natural variation and that "it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

Since the formation of the IPCC in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, a steady flow of IPCC reports have continued to support the notion that humans are contributing to global warming. For example, in 1990 at the World Climate Conference in Geneva, over 700 scientists from around the world gathered to review the IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report in order to set the stage for the crafting of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After their review, they released the Scientists' Declaration, which focused on human-caused global warming, and read, "A clear scientific consensus has emerged on estimates of the range of global warming that can be expected during the 21st century.... Countries are urged to take immediate actions to control the risks of climate change." Another salient assertion regarding human contributions to warming manifested in the Second Scientific Assessment Report, released in 1995. The consensus statement strongly asserted that there has been "a discernible human influence" on the global climate.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Global Warming 101

Building on earlier climate science work by William Herschel, John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier, investigations regarding humans' role in global warming began in 1896, when Nobel Prize-winning physicist Svante Arrhenius examined contributions of carbon dioxide emissions to increases in atmospheric temperature. In the 1930s, meteorologist G.S. Callendar gathered temperature records from more than 200 weather stations around the world and attributed temperature increases to greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

110yrs/4,500,000,000yrs =

[Dean iWait 0]

Global Warming 101

Building on earlier climate science work by William Herschel, John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier, investigations regarding humans' role in global warming began in 1896, when Nobel Prize-winning physicist Svante Arrhenius examined contributions of carbon dioxide emissions to increases in atmospheric temperature. In the 1930s, meteorologist G.S. Callendar gathered temperature records from more than 200 weather stations around the world and attributed temperature increases to greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass' research on atmospheric CO2 and infrared radiation absorption added to a growing scientific consensus that humans contribute to global warming. In 1956, Plass announced that human activities were raising the average global temperature.

Also, beginning in 1958, Charles David Keeling began to document atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. His findings of a dramatic increase in CO2—referred to as the "Keeling Curve"—are considered some of the most important long-term data relating to humans' role in global warming. Additionally, 1966 and 1977 United States National Academy of Sciences reports made clear links between human activities and global warming.

NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 testimony to the U.S. Congress marked solidified scientific concern for human-caused global warming. He said he was "99 percent certain" that warmer temperatures were caused by the burning of fossil fuels and not solely a result of natural variation and that "it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

Since the formation of the IPCC in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, a steady flow of IPCC reports have continued to support the notion that humans are contributing to global warming. For example, in 1990 at the World Climate Conference in Geneva, over 700 scientists from around the world gathered to review the IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report in order to set the stage for the crafting of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After their review, they released the Scientists' Declaration, which focused on human-caused global warming, and read, "A clear scientific consensus has emerged on estimates of the range of global warming that can be expected during the 21st century.... Countries are urged to take immediate actions to control the risks of climate change." Another salient assertion regarding human contributions to warming manifested in the Second Scientific Assessment Report, released in 1995. The consensus statement strongly asserted that there has been "a discernible human influence" on the global climate.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

Thank you for that Steven. You are proving my point here. Global warming is a theory not a fact. I think we should listen to both sides of the issue. Don't you? A "concensus" among a group of scientists does not make a theory fact. Obviously there is also another group of scientists just as credible as the ones you cite who disagree with the global warming theory. The problem is much of the media is reporting global warming as fact or that if their is a "concensus" among a particular group that makes it fact. Or at the very least they cite a "concensus" among the scientific community and the average Joe thinks "Gee every scientist in the world agrees with this global warming thing". Obviously that is not true. How about the old fashioned science of proving your theories as fact? I mean isn't that what science is? Oh and by the way you mentioned I should find information from real credible scientific journals. You know the journal the scientist I quoted has written articles on global warming for? It's named Science. It was founded by a guy by the name of John Michaels in 1880 with the support of a couple of quack scientists by the name of Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Global Warming 101

Building on earlier climate science work by William Herschel, John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier, investigations regarding humans' role in global warming began in 1896, when Nobel Prize-winning physicist Svante Arrhenius examined contributions of carbon dioxide emissions to increases in atmospheric temperature. In the 1930s, meteorologist G.S. Callendar gathered temperature records from more than 200 weather stations around the world and attributed temperature increases to greenhouse gas emissions from industry.

In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass' research on atmospheric CO2 and infrared radiation absorption added to a growing scientific consensus that humans contribute to global warming. In 1956, Plass announced that human activities were raising the average global temperature.

Also, beginning in 1958, Charles David Keeling began to document atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. His findings of a dramatic increase in CO2—referred to as the "Keeling Curve"—are considered some of the most important long-term data relating to humans' role in global warming. Additionally, 1966 and 1977 United States National Academy of Sciences reports made clear links between human activities and global warming.

NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 testimony to the U.S. Congress marked solidified scientific concern for human-caused global warming. He said he was "99 percent certain" that warmer temperatures were caused by the burning of fossil fuels and not solely a result of natural variation and that "it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

Since the formation of the IPCC in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, a steady flow of IPCC reports have continued to support the notion that humans are contributing to global warming. For example, in 1990 at the World Climate Conference in Geneva, over 700 scientists from around the world gathered to review the IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report in order to set the stage for the crafting of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After their review, they released the Scientists' Declaration, which focused on human-caused global warming, and read, "A clear scientific consensus has emerged on estimates of the range of global warming that can be expected during the 21st century.... Countries are urged to take immediate actions to control the risks of climate change." Another salient assertion regarding human contributions to warming manifested in the Second Scientific Assessment Report, released in 1995. The consensus statement strongly asserted that there has been "a discernible human influence" on the global climate.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

Thank you for that Steven. You are proving my point here. Global warming is a theory not a fact. I think we should listen to both sides of the issue. Don't you? A "concensus" among a group of scientists does not make a theory fact. Obviously there is also another group of scientists just as credible as the ones you cite who disagree with the global warming theory. The problem is much of the media is reporting global warming as fact or that if their is a "concensus" among a particular group that makes it fact. Or at the very least they cite a "concensus" among the scientific community and the average Joe thinks "Gee every scientist in the world agrees with this global warming thing". Obviously that is not true. How about the old fashioned science of proving your theories as fact? I mean isn't that what science is? Oh and by the way you mentioned I should find information from real credible scientific journals. You know the journal the scientist I quoted has written articles on global warming for? It's named Science. It was founded by a guy by the name of John Michaels in 1880 with the support of a couple of quack scientists by the name of Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

The climate scientists around the world overwhelmingly and unanimously agree that the global warming is being accelerated by humans. Where you'll find most of the debate among the legitimate scientists is to how much of an effect humans have on global warming. It's silly when you weigh in on the validity and expertise of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world and put that on a scale, the scale tips that way. I think dissenting thoughts among scientists is good and necessary, but it's not like you have 1,000 scientists saying the sky is blue and one saying the sky is purple. The consent does count and it's there.

So where does that put the average citizen who really knows nothing about climate science? It means we can either follow common sense and go with what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us, or we can defy common sense and discount all of what they are saying as bunk, using the excuse of some dissenting scientists.

The political undertone of this issue is really what's driving this argument and why people get so emotional over it. There are those who believe that we need public policies that promote a sustainable future, against those who argue that any government restrictions (however well-meaning) will stifle economic progress. That argument is flawed in itself because it presumes that it is an either/or situation. We can have a sustainable future while enjoying a robust economy...they don't have to oppose each other.

[GaryC 7]

The climate scientists around the world overwhelmingly and unanimously agree that the global warming is being accelerated by humans. Where you'll find most of the debate among the legitimate scientists is to how much of an effect humans have on global warming. It's silly when you weigh in on the validity and expertise of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world and put that on a scale, the scale tips that way. I think dissenting thoughts among scientists is good and necessary, but it's not like you have 1,000 scientists saying the sky is blue and one saying the sky is purple. The consent does count and it's there.

So where does that put the average citizen who really knows nothing about climate science? It means we can either follow common sense and go with what the overwhelming majority of scientists are telling us, or we can defy common sense and discount all of what they are saying as bunk, using the excuse of some dissenting scientists.

The political undertone of this issue is really what's driving this argument and why people get so emotional over it. There are those who believe that we need public policies that promote a sustainable future, against those who argue that any government restrictions (however well-meaning) will stifle economic progress. That argument is flawed in itself because it presumes that it is an either/or situation. We can have a sustainable future while enjoying a robust economy...they don't have to oppose each other.

There you go again! You just can't help yourself can you? They don't "overwhelmingly" and it certainly isn't "unanimous". In fact unless you are just ignoring anything I post you can see that it's becoming less and less a agreed upon. Global warming is just a theory. And it's not a very good theory at that. The world has been going through climate changes since it's birth and none of it has been because of humans. It's arrogance on our part to even think we can effect the climate like the doom and gloomers are saying.

Just in case you missed it I will repost part of this again. Read it this time. There is no concensus. You are only believing what you want to believe.

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.

Try reading and thinking instead of feeling. Global warming is BS. It is fantacy. It's nothing more than junk science.

[GaryC 7]

Debunking Modern Climate Myths

Volume 5, Number 52: 25 December 2002

14 Fallacies

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?

This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the June 2002 issue of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. Its focus is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content and what the consequences of that phenomenon might be for earth's climate and biosphere.

In broaching this subject, de Freitas focuses on certain key questions: Is global climate warming? If so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? Finding answers to these questions, he says, "is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science," and it is these several fallacies or misconceptions that he addresses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Fallacy 4: Global temperature has increased over the past two decades. Although data gathered by various types of thermometers do indeed indicate warming in many places over this time period, the concurrent growth of cities and towns, according to numerous scientific studies cited by de Freitas, has increased so dramatically that much - if not all - of that warming may be due to an intensifying of the urban heat island phenomenon.

Fallacy 5: Satellite data support IPCC claims on observed and projected global warming. No way, says de Freitas; climate models predict significant warming of the lower atmosphere, which is not evident in the satellite temperature record. Hence, the only data set that provides a truly global perspective of atmospheric temperature actually provides "direct evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis."

Fallacy 6: Global climate trends during the past century are very unlike those of the past. This highly-heralded falsehood is soundly refuted by de Freitas, who cites the results of a host of scientific studies that demonstrate the warming of the past century is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that over the past millennium brought the world the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and now the Modern Warm Period.

Fallacy 7: There are reliable forecasts of future climate. No credence can be given to this claim, says de Freitas, until the models making the forecasts have been verified, which likely will not happen anytime soon. In fact, he notes that "earth's atmosphere has warmed only about 10 per cent as much as climate models forecast, averaged over the last 30 years." The reason? "Large uncertainties associated with most model parameters."

Fallacy 8: Significant anthropogenic global warming is underway. First of all, as de Freitas has noted, there may not be any warming currently occurring. Second, as he has demonstrated, much of what may be occurring may be natural. Third, much of what little man-induced warming may exist may not be due to CO2 emissions, but rather to urbanization, changes in land use, and various other greenhouse gases and particulates.

Fallacy 9: Global warming will produce a rise in sea level. Again, not so, according to de Freitas. For one thing, he notes there has been no acceleration in long-term sea level rise over the past century. Plus, he cites the work of many scientists who suggest that warming could result in greater snowfall over the polar ice caps, transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets and possibly halting sea level rise.

Fallacy 10: Global warming will result in more extreme weather events. Nothing could be further from the truth, as de Freitas demonstrates. Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century. In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more stable climate.

Fallacy 11: IPCC's predictions are reasonable. In addition to the many problems associated with current climate models, IPCC warming predictions are based on future greenhouse gas scenarios that are patently unreasonable. Over half of their predictions, according to de Freitas, assume that atmospheric CO2 is increasing twice as fast as it actually is, while methane concentrations have fallen steadily for the past seventeen years.

Fallacy 12: Observed temperature trends are those predicted by climate models. It is difficult to see how this statement can be believed when, as noted by de Freitas, (1) "observed global warming is so much less than predicted by conventional climate models," (2) so fantastically less than the high-end warming that is used to leverage political action, (3) possibly due to other causes than CO2, or (4) even non-existent.

Fallacy 13: There is a consensus that greenhouse induced climate change is a major threat. Quoting de Freitas, "scientists are a well-educated, diverse and ill-disciplined assortment of freethinkers." To believe such a group would reach a consensus on so complex an issue is ludicrous in the extreme. Indeed, de Freitas' own paper, with its many references, is ample proof that true science is alive and well ... and dissenting.

Fallacy Fourteen: The threat of human-caused climate change justifies taking the action proposed in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. If there is a consensus on anything related to this issue, it is that Kyoto's effect on temperature "would be imperceptible," writes de Freitas. "So," he continues, "in addition to being ineffective, costly, and unfair to industrialized nations, the Kyoto Protocol is also unnecessary." To which we say ... Amen!

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

Edited December 8, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[edsperfect 25]

no global warming her it is 17 degtrees

[GaryC 7]

no global warming her it is 17 degtrees

We do have global warming. In the northern half of the world it will start in april, in the southern half it starts in sept. It's called the seasons. None of it's caused by humans.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

ah yes, the global warming wars. i wonder how the judges rank this current battle.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Debunking Modern Climate Myths

Volume 5, Number 52: 25 December 2002

14 Fallacies

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?

This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the June 2002 issue of the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. Its focus is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content and what the consequences of that phenomenon might be for earth's climate and biosphere.

In broaching this subject, de Freitas focuses on certain key questions: Is global climate warming? If so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? Finding answers to these questions, he says, "is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science," and it is these several fallacies or misconceptions that he addresses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Fallacy 4: Global temperature has increased over the past two decades. Although data gathered by various types of thermometers do indeed indicate warming in many places over this time period, the concurrent growth of cities and towns, according to numerous scientific studies cited by de Freitas, has increased so dramatically that much - if not all - of that warming may be due to an intensifying of the urban heat island phenomenon.

Fallacy 5: Satellite data support IPCC claims on observed and projected global warming. No way, says de Freitas; climate models predict significant warming of the lower atmosphere, which is not evident in the satellite temperature record. Hence, the only data set that provides a truly global perspective of atmospheric temperature actually provides "direct evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis."

Fallacy 6: Global climate trends during the past century are very unlike those of the past. This highly-heralded falsehood is soundly refuted by de Freitas, who cites the results of a host of scientific studies that demonstrate the warming of the past century is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that over the past millennium brought the world the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and now the Modern Warm Period.

Fallacy 7: There are reliable forecasts of future climate. No credence can be given to this claim, says de Freitas, until the models making the forecasts have been verified, which likely will not happen anytime soon. In fact, he notes that "earth's atmosphere has warmed only about 10 per cent as much as climate models forecast, averaged over the last 30 years." The reason? "Large uncertainties associated with most model parameters."

Fallacy 8: Significant anthropogenic global warming is underway. First of all, as de Freitas has noted, there may not be any warming currently occurring. Second, as he has demonstrated, much of what may be occurring may be natural. Third, much of what little man-induced warming may exist may not be due to CO2 emissions, but rather to urbanization, changes in land use, and various other greenhouse gases and particulates.

Fallacy 9: Global warming will produce a rise in sea level. Again, not so, according to de Freitas. For one thing, he notes there has been no acceleration in long-term sea level rise over the past century. Plus, he cites the work of many scientists who suggest that warming could result in greater snowfall over the polar ice caps, transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets and possibly halting sea level rise.

Fallacy 10: Global warming will result in more extreme weather events. Nothing could be further from the truth, as de Freitas demonstrates. Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century. In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more stable climate.

Fallacy 11: IPCC's predictions are reasonable. In addition to the many problems associated with current climate models, IPCC warming predictions are based on future greenhouse gas scenarios that are patently unreasonable. Over half of their predictions, according to de Freitas, assume that atmospheric CO2 is increasing twice as fast as it actually is, while methane concentrations have fallen steadily for the past seventeen years.

Fallacy 12: Observed temperature trends are those predicted by climate models. It is difficult to see how this statement can be believed when, as noted by de Freitas, (1) "observed global warming is so much less than predicted by conventional climate models," (2) so fantastically less than the high-end warming that is used to leverage political action, (3) possibly due to other causes than CO2, or (4) even non-existent.

Fallacy 13: There is a consensus that greenhouse induced climate change is a major threat. Quoting de Freitas, "scientists are a well-educated, diverse and ill-disciplined assortment of freethinkers." To believe such a group would reach a consensus on so complex an issue is ludicrous in the extreme. Indeed, de Freitas' own paper, with its many references, is ample proof that true science is alive and well ... and dissenting.

Fallacy Fourteen: The threat of human-caused climate change justifies taking the action proposed in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. If there is a consensus on anything related to this issue, it is that Kyoto's effect on temperature "would be imperceptible," writes de Freitas. "So," he continues, "in addition to being ineffective, costly, and unfair to industrialized nations, the Kyoto Protocol is also unnecessary." To which we say ... Amen!

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

I think it's telling, Gary, to see you give validity to some yahoos over a 'very large number of climate scientists' (is that PC enough for you?).