UPDATE: 1/11/08 -- INHOFE'S LIST CHALLENGED BY GREEN ORGANIZATION -- LINK AT BOTTOM OF PAGE
Once again my views on the global climate phenomenon are vindicated. First, that science is not performed by "consensus." Second, that the debate over the anthroprogenic influence on the global climate is far from over in spite of United Nations' proclamations and the word of the "Goracle." And third, that there is no panic situation and that mankind appears to have more than sufficient time to further study the matter before recommending draconian solutions which involve limits on personal freedoms, heavy taxation, larger government bureaucracies and special privileges for special interests with their not-so-hidden agendas.
Ironically, there are those members of the United States Congress and our scientific community who are willing to stand up to those rabid and hyper-partisan wing-nuts who have turned the subject of global climate change into a pseudo-religious experience that must be taken as the gospel as your personal demonstration of your faith.
Those in the far-left, especially the Marxists, socialists, communists and others who have hi-jacked the ecological movement as well as the democrat party are now being presented with new information which they can not easily politicize or demonize.
The rest of the untold story...
According to the United States Senate...
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."
"The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007."
Growing number of skeptical scientists...
"Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics 'appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.' Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears 'bite the dust.' (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has 'co-opted' the green movement." (LINK)
"This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new 'consensus busters' report is poised to redefine the debate."
Fear and not biting the hand that feeds you...
"Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated."
"'Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,' Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]"
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
"This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were 'futile.'" (LINK)
"Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a 'consensus' of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false.' 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."
The United Nations and Al Gore are pushing their own agenda for political power and profits...
"This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)
"The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped 'consensus' that the debate is 'settled.'"
The truth slowly emerges...
Over time, the truth will become more and more apparent. However, besides the issue of global climate change, is what society in general should do about people and institutions who promote false and misleading programs for their own political power and/or personal profits? What should society do about a government who is willing to subvert the political process to increase government size, consolidate the government's power and panders to the special interests who are more than ready and willing to capitalize on the global warming phenomenon.
Do not get me wrong. I am all for sound, science-based, ecology. I demand clean air, clean water and a minimally polluted environment. What I am against is the political use of science to push an agenda which is detrimental to the citizens of the United States and the people of the world.
What can YOU do?
Realize that the politicians and others who are claiming that global climate change is a "panic situation" and that if we do not take immediate action within the next few years, the planet is doomed. This is a blatant lie. If we were to eliminate mankind from the earth today, the results may not be evident for at least 800-1000 years if they could be measured at all -- and assuming someone was around to provide global measurements. Anyone who wants to panic you into action is trying to force you to bypass your common sense and suspend all logic -- in essence, to take their version of the gospel on faith. WRONG!
Realize that science is not performed by consensus or Copernicus's clever little heliocentric idea (the earth revolves around the sun) would have never caught on. You can bet that our astronauts would have been bummed to find that there was a consensus opinion that they could not walk on the moon.
Realize that governments are mostly controlled by politicians who are, in turn, controlled by special interests who foot their campaign costs. Here is where consensus actually equals compromise: both sides do not get exactly what they want -- although the bill is paid in-full by the American taxpayer.
Do not let gross polluters continue to pollute your local neighborhoods by buying "pollution" or "emissions" credits which allow them to legally continue polluting while passing the costs of the purchased credits to their direct customers and, by extension, the public who must purchase goods and services whose price has been inflated by the costs of the credits. Force them to clean the water, the air and the land.
Do not let the ecologists who favor earth and animals over humans get away with their continual court attacks on the implementation of man's progress. These are the people who are responsible for millions of deaths when they hysterically attacked DDT for mosquito control based on junk science which has been disproven over the years.
Do not let the far-left "peace at any price" and "no nukes" crowd stand in the way of the energy independence of the United States on ecological grounds that have no basis in science.
Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.
-- steve
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Reference Links:
Report on Diversity of Opinions|U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
For the credential mongers...
There are always those who claim that one side's scientists are suspect due to their funding, lack of credentials or their lack of affiliation with a prestigious university or research organization. This section is dedicated to these idiots who can not seem to realize that a number of substantial ideas and scientific discoveries have come from unaffiliated lone thinkers.
"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore."
"Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London."
01/11/08 -- Warning: It has been suggested by TheDailyGreen.com that some of the names that appear on the Inhofe list should be disqualified for comment as they do not appear to be, according to one researcher, qualified climatologists. The list of 413 people contain, again according to a single researcher, 84 people who have allegedly taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries or think tanks started by those industries; 49 are retired; 44 are television weathermen; 20 are economists; and 70 appear to have no apparent expertise in clime science.
I am presenting this somewhat condescending article so that you, my valued readers, may have access to all sides of the argument.
I would like to comment that I see a number of eminently qualified researchers with relevant experience in the subject matter being discussed. Playing the credentials game is often not fruitful, especially since people like Kary Mullis and Dick Feynman were originally credentialed in one field and made surprising contributions in others. Both coincidently have won real Nobel prizes of the type that are given to scientists and not the discredited Nobel Peace prize reserved for politicians.
Most researchers working in a narrow field will often work for corporations or industry-supported institutions. The implied suggestion that this compromises their work is not only insulting, it is wrong-headed. Peer-reviewed papers containing slanted or biased results are usually discovered in time and the authors discredited. Such is the way of real science.
Being retired or unaffiliated is not a handicap if one's mind is still active and engaged in the pursuit of science.
Television weathermen are usually trained meteorologists and while they can't use the current computer models to forecast beyond ten to fourteen days with any great statistical accuracy, they do have a valid, trained viewpoint on weather and climate.
Economists are eminently qualified to examine the effects of carbon caps and global emissions trading schemes and should not be excluded from this group.
As for the 70 names which the researcher could not identify in his 12-hour effort, no conclusion can be drawn as no information has been presented.
Although I consider this to be a cheap ploy to discredit a group of scientists and others who hold a particular viewpoint, I am willing to present this information so that you can draw your own conclusions. But be forewarned: the absolute truth of the matter is that science, no matter which side of a debate you happen to believe, is not performed by consensus and that one man, standing alone, can make contributions that truly stagger the mind. If you want proof: check the work of Nikola Tesla -- who incidentally did not win a Nobel Prize, yet his research did more to improve man's life on earth than most any other individual of physical science. His research is just beginning to be understood after all of these years.
Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked|TheDailyGreen.com
Comments