PDA

View Full Version : Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief In Man-Made Global Warming--Now Skeptics


Mother_Marjorie
May 16th, 2007, 09:48 PM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

.pdf version http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET

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 ***** 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.

jbone_0307
May 16th, 2007, 11:42 PM
Even if man-made global warming is a myth, we still need to reduce our dependence on OIL, foreign and domestic because it's been proven that that contributes to other unhealthy environmental conditions like acid rain and smog. Global warming isn't the only environmental issue.

Mother_Marjorie
May 16th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Let the back-pedaling, Gore-ites begin.

jbone_0307
May 17th, 2007, 03:05 AM
What if man-made global warming is true?? Then we're screwed! So the correct thing to do is to take preventative measures to make sure that the grim pictures being painted don't come true. This will also insure that humans aren't a huge factor in global warming.

Fingon
May 17th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Even if man-made global warming is a myth, we still need to reduce our dependence on OIL, foreign and domestic because it's been proven that that contributes to other unhealthy environmental conditions like acid rain and smog. Global warming isn't the only environmental issue.

Well, do you want to know what made me fundamentally untrust the UN reports, the David Suzukis, the Al Gores? the politicians?

No mention (or little mention) of the rain forest, of how it's being decimated and how that is irreversible, and they continue doing it.

When you heard or read the speeches, they talk about investing in "clean" technologies, like wind power or solar, of limiting CO2 emissions but fundamentally, they talk about the pollution credits, that seems to be the focus, I wonder why?

Al Gore says that if you can't reduce your "carbon footprint", then buy credits, he said that it's so simple and the republicans don't get it, if you can't cut the emissions, buy credits.

One politician in Canada sent a note about a law passed by parliament, regarding emission cuts, all they did was to approve a law, but she came with words like "don't let them tell you it's not possible, we have proven with this law it's possible", that indicates that she is either an idiot or clearly the whole environmental issue is a political issue.

Buy credit, buy credits, buy credits, there is a projected 25 billion dollars market, a broker paradise, comissions earned out of nothing.

The funny thing is that the emission credits idea was originally a good one. The idea was that countries with vast extensions of rain forest, such as Brazil, or India, or Congo would refrend from destroying it. Because the rain forest is the best environment cleaner, that would compensate for emissions, therefore, those countries would have a net emission credit that could sell to countries that didn't want or can't cut their emissions.

In other words, industrialized countries such as Canada, the US or the western europena countries will pay those countries to keep the world's lungs alive.

that idea was forgotten, despite the fact that deforestation has a much more devastating effect than any "carbon footprint". While some idiots calculate how much Elizabeth Hurley emitted in her wedding, nobody gives a shit for what is happening in the amazon and other parts, so, for me they have zero credibility.

Even some of the so called "enviromentally friendly" policies, like developing ethanol from corn are contributing to deforestation, they are really complete idiots or they just don't care and are trying to scare us off to do more business.

Unlike the "greenhouse" effect which is just a theory, never proven, it's well known that plants take CO2 and emit oxygen, that is biology 101, nobody gives a shit.

They care about the polar bears, but they never cared for the animals that were killed from helicopters or planes in Africa just for fun, it wasn't politically correct to protest about that, it sounds better blame evil capitalism for the dead of polar bears.

Hipocrissy at its highest level.

samsung101
May 17th, 2007, 04:57 PM
I would hope that some common sense would be allowed to step into the
Global Warming conversation.

Al Gore and Laurie David and Hollywood and the hysterical media have done us
a disservice, by making it seem all of the global warming issues are man made.
They're not. A lot of it is. There are things we as humans can do to help the
situation.

But, it's insane to think or presume human beings are the cause of all of it, or
even the majority of it, or that good old Planet Earth, doesn't change and alter
itself all by itself. Without us. In spite of us. Change happens. The earth
will change. Not all of it to our benefit.

I'd also like to see the global warming fanatics take their case to China and India
and South America a lot more, and see what reaction and agreements they get there.
While we're all complaining about the USA and Europe, fact is that China is using
more oil than the rest, and could care less about global warming. They care about
profit and manufacturing and ripping out mountain ranges for dams and relocating people
to put in nuclear plants. As we whine about using paper or plastic at Target and IKEA
in the suburbs.

Sam L
May 17th, 2007, 06:07 PM
If people want to make money out of green technologies, so what? We live in countries that have the free market right?

Or are you guys against business? :confused:

Thanx4nothin
May 17th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Man made global warming does not exist we simply add to the problem...

Fingon
May 18th, 2007, 02:05 AM
If people want to make money out of green technologies, so what? We live in countries that have the free market right?

Or are you guys against business? :confused:

I have no problem if it's not MY money.

One of the bases of free market is freedom of choice. Not only to choose whose product you buy, but also if you buy it at all.

The global warming alarmist want to force us to spend on what they think should be done. They are creating a forced and captive market.

Mother_Marjorie
May 18th, 2007, 02:47 AM
I have no problem if it's not MY money.

One of the bases of free market is freedom of choice. Not only to choose whose product you buy, but also if you buy it at all.

The global warming alarmist want to force us to spend on what they think should be done. They are creating a forced and captive market.
Fingon, I'm of the belief that the Entreprenual Global Warming Alarmists are taking a page from Hitler's book on establishing and spreading fear in which to create political and monetary capital. otherwise known as "power."

Its quite sick, disturbing and morally bankrupt that so-called "public servants" in our government in conjunction with greedy Entreprenual "Green" America are once again attempting to use fear to create a new economy. However, I think the Global Warming "bubble" will burst in a much shorter time than the Internet bubble of three years.

As more and more ethical scientists begin to step forward, while shedding monetary influences, the truth will emerge and the great Global Warming Scare will pale in comparison to the Y-2K scandal of the late '90's.

Mother_Marjorie
May 18th, 2007, 02:48 AM
If people want to make money out of green technologies, so what? We live in countries that have the free market right?

Or are you guys against business? :confused:
The problem is that the product your friends are selling is based upon a widespread fraud.

Pureracket
May 18th, 2007, 03:01 AM
Let's see....you Bush Republicans and Libertarians(:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:) have all seemed to suggest that by attacking Gore's character, you have somehow defeated the Global warming issue. Fine. I'll accept that.

Now, let's look @ the countries where Al Gore does not exist who believe in global warming and it's influence on world temperatures. Who are you going to point to now? The US media still? Al Gore?

We can agree that global warming is not going to affect the US because of the fact that Al Gore states it. Fine. Our temperatures won't rise, and out snowcaps won't melt. All the other countries can't be wrong, though.

Scotso
May 18th, 2007, 04:32 AM
The problem is that the product your friends are selling is based upon a widespread fraud.

I can't think of many things that aren't sold using some type of fraud.

Usually it's false advertising.

Sam L
May 18th, 2007, 04:51 AM
The global warming alarmist want to force us to spend on what they think should be done. They are creating a forced and captive market.

LOL Fingon, this happens in every marketing department of every company across the world all the time! :lol:

Alizé Molik
May 18th, 2007, 08:07 AM
Pretty sure Al Gore's house uses something stupid like the energy that could power a small town or something every year..

hypocracy aside, I think we should take care of the planet but there is no way I am going to believe that the oceans will rise 10m in the next 20 years.

Philbo
May 18th, 2007, 03:48 PM
I would like to know what all the Doubters think should be done? Nothing?

Should we just keep on business as usual?

For arguments sake, Im willing to believe that some of the projections are exxagerated. But even so, what do all the Climate Change doubters think should be done about greenhouse emmissions? Nothing at all?

fufuqifuqishahah
May 18th, 2007, 04:58 PM
come on everybody, chant with me!

REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON OIL!
REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON OIL!
REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON OIL!

dasvedanya

samsung101
May 18th, 2007, 07:48 PM
The Democrats control the Senate, and this report was watered down, and it still came out
stating there are now skeptics coming from the former Global Warming Hysteria Scientific
Corporation - make no mistake about it, there is a lot of money behind the global warming
hysteria.

I only want some perspective being given to this issue.

We can all do more to help the earth do better - recycle, not waste so much,
use alternative energy more,etc. Most of us do. But, it isn't making much sense
to strangle American industry, or European industry, while giving a pass to the
#1 industry growing nation in the world - China. Which country is going to have
better air and water quality in 10 years - China or USA?

Just state the facts, not the hysteria.

Facts will show that the earth changes, no matter what man does.
Facts will show there are many lauded and respected scientists who
doubt and question the hysteria being presented as 100% fact by
scientists and Hollywood - not quacks.

Facts will show that old Al Gore's film was full of lies and
misleading presentations.
Facts will show that the news and the Democrats have given us
global freezing, global warming, AIDS pandemic among everyone,
overpopulation boom, food will run out, water will run out.....
for decades.

Fingon
May 19th, 2007, 03:14 AM
I would like to know what all the Doubters think should be done? Nothing?

Should we just keep on business as usual?

For arguments sake, Im willing to believe that some of the projections are exxagerated. But even so, what do all the Climate Change doubters think should be done about greenhouse emmissions? Nothing at all?

Not necessarily, but I can't quite understand the concept behind "do something". We need to understand the problem from a scientific poin of view, not a political one, and find a remedy, if we can, and apply it if the benefits surpass the costs (I am not talking about money), not just rush to do something that can be costly but useless and even counterproductive.

A good example is what happened with aids, which actually have a lot of similarities with global warming (by the way it's treated)

aids was attributed to desviant sexual pratices, human conducts, like global warming is attributed to human activity. Abstinence was the remedy against aids, not using energy is the remedy against global warming.

In both cases they did not know the scientific facts, they just guessed judging by appearances and a few opinions that were magnified by the media.
Aids is caused by a virus, some scientists think that global warming is caused by sun activity, the alarmists deny it or say it has a minimal impact. I am not an expert but the idea that the sun has a minimal impact on climate sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

In both case, there was collective hysteria, a roar to "do something". A lot of resources were devoted to try to find a vaccine or a cure for aids, they wanted to shortcut it, but the fact is that first they needed to do basic research and understand how the virus worked, they didn't, people were dying, they were rushed, but in fact, they wasted 10 years, they didn't get a vaccine, they didn't find a cure, and after billions of dollars and a lot of time and effort they were back at row zero. I see the same happening here, solutions pushed by hysteria and the need to "do something", they are diverting resources that should be used reationaly.

And if global warming is mostly due to sun's activity, there may be nothing we can do, there are things that are impossible to achieve. If a goverment wanted to reach Pluto in 1 month, it would be impossible, even if they say "we must reach Pluto, do something", no matter how many laws they pass, it won't happen. If we can't change the climate, then we should probably focus on how to minimize the effects of it.

I am not saying it's not possible to do something, but it should be done out of hard evidence and knowledge, not hysteria, not buying emission credits.

It's interesting that the number of scientists doubting global warming is growing by the day, it's also interesting that the only fact that has been proven that causes climate change is deforestation and they give a shit about it, the greenhouse effect is just a theory, never proven in a lab.

And yes, oil dependancy and the middle east and Russia have a lot to do with this. Mass manipulation to change consumer habits.

OZTENNIS
May 19th, 2007, 06:36 AM
all human beings who do not believe that we have at least had a NEGATIVE IMPACT on the environment (ie. global warming, desertification, deforestation, extinction of species, climate change etc.) NEED TO BE SHOT :mad: :armed:

Sam L
May 20th, 2007, 12:29 PM
A good example is what happened with aids, which actually have a lot of similarities with global warming (by the way it's treated)

aids was attributed to desviant sexual pratices, human conducts, like global warming is attributed to human activity. Abstinence was the remedy against aids, not using energy is the remedy against global warming.

In both cases they did not know the scientific facts, they just guessed judging by appearances and a few opinions that were magnified by the media.
Aids is caused by a virus, some scientists think that global warming is caused by sun activity, the alarmists deny it or say it has a minimal impact. I am not an expert but the idea that the sun has a minimal impact on climate sounds a bit ridiculous to me.



Back up. We knew from the beginning that AIDS was caused by a virus. The reason why homosexuality got into the equation was because of the high instances of AIDS amongst the homosexual community in the early 80's. Bigots used that as an excuse to go after a section of the community because they didn't understand the science.

It's a terrible example. Global warming is not going after anyone in the community. If anything it's saying we all need to do something. The message from the beginning has been every little bit counts. Turn off that light if you don't need it. A simple message. Let's find alternative sources of energy. A simple message.

I find it rather insulting that you'd equate bigotry and ignorance with this.

Sam L
May 20th, 2007, 12:34 PM
And yes, oil dependancy and the middle east and Russia have a lot to do with this. Mass manipulation to change consumer habits.

Like I said before, this happens in marketing all the time, why do you have a problem with this?

Also, yes I'd rather keep my Australian dollars in Australian green companies than it going to Middle East oil sultans. And what exactly is wrong with that?

Timariot
May 20th, 2007, 02:07 PM
Facts will show that the earth changes, no matter what man does.


This logic is about same that since everyone ages and eventually dies, then murder is not wrong.

Fingon
May 20th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Back up. We knew from the beginning that AIDS was caused by a virus. The reason why homosexuality got into the equation was because of the high instances of AIDS amongst the homosexual community in the early 80's. Bigots used that as an excuse to go after a section of the community because they didn't understand the science.


did we? that knowledge was irrelevant since we didn't know (And we still don't know to a great extent) how the virus spread itself. that bigotry caused research and prevention to be delayed years.

It's a terrible example. Global warming is not going after anyone in the community. If anything it's saying we all need to do something. The message from the beginning has been every little bit counts. Turn off that light if you don't need it. A simple message. Let's find alternative sources of energy. A simple message.

it's a good example, if you understand the concept. It's a case were politics and bigotry clouded science, were resources were wasted. I used to know a researcher that told me that at some point, if you weren't reseraching something related to blood you would get no money, so many doctors and biologists just jumped of the bandwagon just to get grants, sounds familiar?

The result, 15 years were wasted, they did a very poor service to the people dying of aids, and scientists were behind it, but like global warming, scientist followed the bandwagon and the money. And HIV didn't go after anybody, it's a fucking virus, doesn't have a brain, it doesn't do it because it's evil but because it's its nature :rolleyes:

I find it rather insulting that you'd equate bigotry and ignorance with this.

well, it's nothing I can do about that, you have decided that all the alarmism with global warming is sound science, maybe if you have read a little you would know that it has all happened before, and ignorance is what I see all over the place when the issue is debated, and I see a lot of bigotry since those who don't agree are called names and attacked. Sorry but I do see a lot of similarities, if you aren't able to think in an abstract way and compare situations despite the differences, then it's not worth having this conversation.

Fingon
May 20th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Like I said before, this happens in marketing all the time, why do you have a problem with this?


they are lying to us, I have a problem with that.

Also, yes I'd rather keep my Australian dollars in Australian green companies than it going to Middle East oil sultans. And what exactly is wrong with that?

good for you, that's your choice, let me have mine.

mc8114
May 20th, 2007, 08:30 PM
myth or not
green technologies are good for the environment, so why not keep on with their development? :shrug:

Philbo
May 21st, 2007, 09:44 AM
The thing is, all you need to do is look outside in a big city on any average day and look at the suffocating smog, the blackness of the air, the fact you cant see the Hollywood sign from the middle of LA.... not to mention the extinction rate of other species, deforestation etc to see that humans are having a horribly negative impact on the environment.

So if some of the global warming claims are exxagerated, but the spin off effect is that we rely more on renewable energies, I think its a good thing.

Just sitting back and saying 'people are exagerating it' in order to stick to business as usual, is paramount to suicide of our own species over the longer term.