Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: This one is more apt -- That ship already sailed | |
|
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:24:23 05/16/07 Wed In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Tide is rising...no pun intended" on 05:44:57 05/16/07 Wed And the handful of losers in your post, yet again unaccredited, missed the boat. Below is a link. Why don't you try using them instead of repeatedly trying to hide your sources? http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/rupert-murdoch-and-news-corp-going.html >Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists >Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now >Skeptics > >Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After >Reviewing New Research > >Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global >warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate >Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune >time to examine the recent and quite remarkable >momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many >former believers in catastrophic man-made global >warming have recently reversed themselves and are now >climate skeptics. The names included below are just a >sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken >out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, >the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” >on man-made global warming. > >The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more >detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who >have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria >will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. >Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as >this new government report is set to redefine the >current climate debate. > >In the meantime, please review the list of scientists >below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of >the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to >distribute the partial list of scientists who recently >converted to skeptics to your local schools and >universities. The voices of rank and file scientists >opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to >the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a >daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 >article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” >) > >The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder >even as the latest science grows less and less >alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 >article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It >is also worth noting that the proponents of climate >fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent >by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. >official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt >global warming fears ) > >Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version ) > > > > > > >Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist >and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 >scientific articles and written 11 books and received >numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt >Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United >States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in >2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to >sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the >cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the >“prophets of doom of global warming” of being >motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of >helpless protesting has become a very lucrative >business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or >historical archives point to the fact that climate is >a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by >mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be >cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 >article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The >National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March >2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental >credentials. The author of early environmental books, >he fought successful battles to protect the ozone >layer from CFCs and public health from lead >pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate >disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” >mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations >consist in denouncing man's role on the climate >without doing anything about it except organizing >conferences and preparing protocols that become dead >letters." 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.” > >Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta >recently reversed his view of man-made climate change >and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel >was once such a big believer in man-made global >warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in >honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was >signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto >Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making >small changes in their lives. But after further >examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed >his scientific views completely and became such a >strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled >“The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of >Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun >article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building >his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized >global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red >flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not >responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says >“the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the >Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told >the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we >were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. >But glaciers have been coming and going for billions >of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has >gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that >research money is being funneled into promoting >climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers >more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that >can't be changed, the money is not going into the >places that it is needed,” he said. > >Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top >young award winning scientists, recanted his belief >that manmade emissions were driving climate change. >""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is >the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But >after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized >that things are far more complicated than the story >sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories >regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more >than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 >Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, >the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating >circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain >a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and >"it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not >exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- >rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National >Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in >the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase >the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 >output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a >50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled >amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global >temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not >significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on >August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that >“CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set >out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He >wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but >since there was none, he slowly had to change his >views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists >converting to man-made global warming skepticism as >they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is >common to many of the scientists who think like us >(that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). >Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. >While working there, each one of us realized that >things just don't add up to support the AGW >(Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to >change their views,” he wrote. > >Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did >carbon accounting for the Australian Government, >recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I >devoted six years to carbon accounting, building >models for the Australian government to estimate >carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. >When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that >carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty >conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened >the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I >am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 >blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon >emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature >data for the last century, more detailed ice core >data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays >precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes >famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my >mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how >he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And >the political realm in turn fed money back into the >scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs >depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused >global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but >there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on >that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job >that would not have existed if we didn't believe >carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were >lots of people around me; and there were international >conferences full of such people. And we had political >support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we >felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). >It was great. We were working to save the planet! But >starting in about 2000, the last three of the four >pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or >reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data >was the central evidence for believing that >atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The >new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* >initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and >says nothing about the strength of any amplification. >This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that >atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, >while still allowing the possibility that it had a >supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics >and science have become even more entangled. The >science of global warming has become a partisan >political issue, so positions become more entrenched. >Politicians and the public prefer simple and >less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political >climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the >cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes >rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans >bio link ) > >Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior >Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, >also reversed himself from believer in man-made >climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm >belief about global warming, until I started working >on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I >switched to the other side in the early 1990's when >Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a >position paper and I started to look into the problem >seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 >scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging >withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen >Harper which stated in part, "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.” > >Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental >campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and >host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently >converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science >and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." >According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday >Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a >natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous >amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t >be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof >for their claims. They have computer models which do >not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s >conversion on global warming did not come without a >sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended >their association with him because of his views on >climate change. The severing of relations came despite >Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK >Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline >environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s >peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania >he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers >cutting down a rainforest.” > >Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The >University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a >believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At >first I accepted that increases in human caused >additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the >atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. >and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time >and with the results of research, I formed the view >that, although it makes for a good story, it is >unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of >significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on >August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. >But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” >he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of >evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I >believe the billions of dollars committed to GW >research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties >etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very >real environmental problems (such as air pollution, >poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved >health services) that we know affect tens of millions >of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one >of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter >urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister >Stephen Harper which stated in part, “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.” > >Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman >of the Department of Meteorology at University of >Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and >Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the >coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time >Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing >Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling >World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading >global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson >dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made >global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United >Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by >the British Institute of Geographers as the most >frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before >there were enough people to make any difference at >all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the >climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson >told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. >“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, >it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up >since the early 1800s, before the Industrial >Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice >Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide >into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and >spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon >dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that >warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse >gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, >such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the >atmosphere was measured during the past century, but >to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say >that the question of anthropogenic modification of the >climate is an important question -- too important to >ignore. However, it has now become a media >free-for-all and a political issue more than a >scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005. > >Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm >started out as a man-made global warming believer but >he later switched his view after conducting climate >research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started >as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I >read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the >research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I >changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored >the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a >Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was >the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical >Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote >an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to >Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in >part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless >phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the >public that a climate catastrophe is looming and >humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is >justified. Global climate changes all the time due to >natural causes and the human impact still remains >impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” > > >Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton >University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 >driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my >students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate >change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson >said his “conversion” happened following his research >on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in >the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to >climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years >ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC >(Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of >Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI >(principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over >the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” >he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we >were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and >paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that >corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that >time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to >publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals >could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson >noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me >a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go >where the science takes me and not were activists want >me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more >scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When >I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion >out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate >change). I was at the Geological Society of America >meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say >that people with my opinion were probably in the >majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February >13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is >responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, >ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not >reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian >environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, >it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo >each other and all the while proclaiming that the >debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a >scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a >separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian >newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific >proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the >pudding, based on what (media and governments) are >saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to >disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," >he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by >now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely >with the solar cycles." > >Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the >Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific >Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in >Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of >man-made climate change in the form of global cooling >in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic >of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global >warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in >man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a >study on the effects of industrial pollution on the >global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on >this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, >2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political >correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a >lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, >and I have serious problems in accepting the >reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski >added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on >climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, >also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what >the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a >March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: >The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus >find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory >of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in >science, and its important consequences for politics >and the global economy—is based on ice core studies >that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 >levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three >decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, >recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck >(Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely >ignored by climatologists—and not because they were >wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several >Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are >standard textbook procedures in chemistry, >biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, >and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that >these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of >anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as >perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” >Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the >1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will >soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a >conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into >discredit the science of that time. The same fate >awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes >that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers >of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 >scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging >withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen >Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet >before we properly understand the Earth's climate >system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been >made since the protocol was created, many of which are >taking us away from a concern about increasing >greenhouse gases." > >Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the >Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, >reversed his views on man-made climate change after >further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with >these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught >my students that most of the increase in temperature >of the past century was due to human contribution of >C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. >Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards >a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 >documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What >You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate >Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look >more closely at the science and it astonished me. In >fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. >There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural >causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This >has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto >protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other >leading climate researchers also have serious concerns >about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he >added. > >Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor >emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from >believer to skeptic after conducting scientific >studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the >(global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on >April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 >in the atmosphere was leading to a climate >catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I >realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far >more consistent picture with climate, over many time >scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It >was the results of my work on past records, on >geological time scales, that led me to realize the >discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to >understand the background issues of modeling led to >realization of the assumptions and uncertainties >involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly >favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal >climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the >Earth has been warming and he believes in the >scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point >where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief >that it underestimates the role of natural variability >by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of >additional energy in the planetary balance. Such >additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The >point is that most of the temperature, in both nature >and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor >(model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) >Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more >water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up >the water cycle by inputting more energy into the >system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that >is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent >(model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models >(and climate) would generate a more or less similar >outcome regardless where this additional energy is >coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection >is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the >global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the >need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he >wrote. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |