An Inconvenient Truth

Global warming.

The Trailer

for An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Reality

I repeat in this blog how I believe that conservatives are usually brighter than liberals. I know this must be insulting to those of you liberals who are genuinely bright. After all, there is nothing inherent in being a liberal that makes one less intelligent. Progressives can legitimately hold and preach their views based on sound beliefs, facts, and arguments. In fact, in my opinion, any liberal who reads this blog more than once is probably brighter than your average liberal.

More than this even, if you dispute me with sound arguments, or stand up for true classic liberalism with the idea that progressive thinking is a better way—that big government, for example, can solve society's problems, or that the war in Iraq was wrong, I will respect you far more than if you merely state your mindless Bush-, religious-, conservative-, America-, military-bashing mantras. Tell me how we can make a better world and I'll listen.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

Unfortunately, the state of present-day liberalism is not like this. Present-day liberals are worshipping at the feet of demagogues, who presume their audience's lack of brainpower, and merely repeat falsehoods so often and in so many ways that the falsehoods become "truths."

One day I will relax my attack on liberals as being unintelligent. For now, I am reacting to the incessant liberal repetition that conservatives are stupid. Conservatives, according to these mindless liberal Websites and shows, get their "talking points" from their leaders. I don't find this to be the case. I experience that conservatives are varied in their opinions and have a "show me" attitude about positions. They are as likely to criticize George Bush as praise him. They don't swallow whole hog what Rush Limbaugh says. They do, however, like me, come down on the side of conservatism after a serious consideration of all sides.

You cannot say the same thing about liberals at this time in history. They are single-minded in their ideology, mantras, and actions. It is their religion. This is why I consider them less intelligent. There is no thinking involved. They see glaciers retreating and, bingo!, they know that global warming is happening, New York City will be under water, and mankind is to blame. Therefore, again, and as usual, Republicans, business, and America are evil.

These are the same people centuries ago who were cheering all the scientists who insisted that the earth most certainly did not revolve around the sun, and "if you disagree with us we'll put you to death!" Their chant was probably, "No Earth Around the Sun! No Earth Around the Sun!" This was the only mantra they could chant back then because there weren't any oil companies.

click to hide most of this section

The Inconvenient Truths about An Inconvenient Truth

I finally saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It is a masterpiece of demagoguery. It contains lies, half-truths, and unexamined "truths" that all go to support his major thesis, that we are causing a disastrous global warming but that we can prevent it if we just go green.






I am always suspicious of any presentation that is one-sided. This goes double for one given by a non-scientist who starts out with a theory that he wants to prove. Especially, when the subject is so complex as climate. Weathermen, despite all our modern advances, can't predict what the climate will be like in one month let alone fifty years. Scientists can't even tell if a storm will become a hurricane until a few days before it hits. Predicting global climate change in the next twenty years based on computer models, therefore, is not very reliable, and I've found a host of scientists who agree with me on this point.

I'd be more likely to trust what Mr. Gore says in this movie if he would have extensively covered the hundreds of scientists who disagree with him. Yes, that's another lie in the movie, and even in Wikepedia, that the number of scientists who disagree with Gore is small, and that the ones who do disagree are all funded by the oil industry. Lies.

Hundreds of Reputable Critics

The number of scientists who dispute global warming, its causes, and its future is huge. In the second part of this post, below, I'm listing some of these scientists and their views. Go to the Wikepedia article for a more complete list, with references. Plus, there are sources all over the Web of scientists who dispute Al Gore's assumptions. Just look them up. Set aside about a week, because there are many. And, among them are many scientists not connected with industry nor with oil companies; scientists without an agenda, except for a search for truth.

Following, I am going to list my conclusions after reading all the literature. I am trained in the scientific method. Although I am no longer a practicing scientist, I retain a keen interest in the area and am most dedicated to presenting the truth about scientific findings. I don't ask you to take my word for things, though. Instead, read what I have to say, and then do your own research. Go to the list at the end of this article, and to Wikepedia on the subject, and please also do a Google search for pro and con on An Inconvenient Truth. You will find that my conclusions do come from the studies and literature of hundreds of reputable scientists.

Also see this letter presented to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in April of 2006, Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit
the science of global warming.

A Few Inconvenient Truths

What Are the Facts?

Is global warming happening?

The majority of scientists do say that global warming is really happening. Still, there are several scientists who disagree. For example:

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is 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."

Another prominent scientist, Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology. Lindzen is identified as a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995", which is one of the major works relied on by Al Gore for his movie.

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."

"I think the odds are about 50-50," he said.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

If There is Global Warming, How Much?

This is in dispute too. This is a tricky thing to measure, and despite Gore's proclamations, there is not agreement even about whether the warming is unusual. There is a large group of scientists who say the warming is within normal fluctuations.

Dr. Lindzen, again, says about the IPCC report

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute writes:

The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.

If there is global warming, is it caused by human activity?

This is in dispute. Hundreds of scientists say that No, the global warming we have is caused by natural cycles. And, it is untrue that all these critics are funded by oil companies.

Lindzen wrote that, of the Kyoto Accord:

there is no controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified:

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.

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?

If Greenland and the Antarctic melt, will the oceans rise 20 feet?

Many scientists say No. The rise will be much less dramatic, almost negligible. New York City will not be under water.

Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admit 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.

For an example of how complicated the science is just to determine whether sea levels have risen or will rise, see Wikepedia, sea level rise.

There are thousands of variables. Anyone who says he knows New York City will be underwater in ten years is a bold-faced liar.

Are Scientists Pressured to Criticize the Global Warming Theory?

Dr. Lindzen has been a strong critic of manmade global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

In the same piece, Lindzen also wrote:

In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

click to hide most of this section

Conclusions

The facts are:

(1) Measuring actual temperatures of the earth is difficult, and open to interpretation.

(2) Predictions of the future are based on computer models, which are unreliable.

Gore's Arguments

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."

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."

click to show/hide the rest of this section

Those Poor Polar Bears

Even the fear-mongering about the cuddly polar bears is exaggerated:

There are no data indicating a downward trend in U.S. or global polar bear populations – that’s according to the FWS’ own fact sheet for the proposal. There apparently are some reports of lower-weight polar bears and reduced cub survival in certain areas, but there are no firm explanations for these reports and their significance is unknown.

Now here’s the kicker: the U.S. government, the same one that now wants to classify the polar bears as “threatened,” also sanctions the hunting of polar bears for trophies. In the proposal’s media release, the FWS stated in an unconcerned, matter-of-fact fashion that, “[s]ome Native communities in arctic Canada also obtain significant financial benefits from allocating a portion of their overall subsistence quota to trophy hunters from the United States and other nations…

The FWS says that the projected threat to the polar bears is the future loss of their sea-ice habitat – this is the sole legal grounds for the proposed listing. Polar bears spend most of their lives on sea ice and recent data appear to indicate, according to the FWS, that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is decreasing. The FWS even mentioned predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean “within the foreseeable future."

But such predictions and the potential consequences to polar bears are highly uncertain. No one knows exactly what’s happening with Arctic sea ice, much less what the future holds. The Greenland ice melt, for example, was actually larger in 1991 than in 2005 and the Greenland ice cap is thickening. Data from the Canadian Ice Service indicate there has been no precipitous drop-off in ice cap amount or thickness since 1970.

Let’s keep in mind that polar bears have survived much warmer times than we are now experiencing – like 1,000 years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum and 5,000-9,000 years ago during the period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.

click to hide most of this section

My Thoughts

Obviously, I've presented you with just the tip of the iceberg, forgive the pun. Read Wikepedia and search the Web for yourself to get the real truth.

I'd like to obtain the funding to make a counter-movie to Al Gore's demagoguery, but we'll see about that.

I am Pro Environment

I am not against environmentalism, however. I am just against mass hysteria and treating people like infants. I am always for the truth, whether this shows global warming or not.

I think it's wise and a good thing to go green to a certain extent. I am not happy with the level of mercury in our oceans, nor pesticides in our fish farms. I want our air and water to be clean.

So, I support environmental protections. After all, mercury is a proven poison, with demonstrable bad effects; and pesticides are not good for health. Just remember that pesticides have their good effects too, enabling us to grow more and better quality food.

The Mass Hysteria of Global Warming

Global warming is another matter, however. On this issue, theorists have engendered a mass hysteria based on computer models that are complex and unproven.

The Truth about Global Warming

I don't think Al Gore's dire predictions will come true, regardless whether we adopt Kyoto or not. I also don't think that the U.S. will be the major polluter of the future. That honor will go to China, and the red-loving left will be in a pickle when they have to criticize a communist government instead of a capitalist one.

Al Gore, to his credit, did mention one factor in pollution that often gets overlooked by the left—population. POPULATION COUPLED WITH RISING STANDARDS OF LIVING ARE THE TWO MOST RELEVANT FACTORS IN POLLUTION the world over. The more people there are, and the higher their incomes rise, the more pollution there will be. It's simple math—the more cars there are in the world, and refrigerators, motors, electric grids, etc., the more pollution. This will occur regardless of any "going green." 100 hybrid cars will still burn more gasoline than one gas-guzzling Hummer. Even growing all that corn for ethanol will use more and more fossil fuel the more people there are on the planet. More people means more pollution, period.

The left will never tell you this, though, because it's not politically correct. The United States of America, whether it goes green or not, will continue to produce a huge amount of pollution if its population keeps rising. Yes, technology can help, and even going green—but population is a problem, and it needs to be at least considered. Can anyone say illegal immigration?

Recommendations

Fine, let's go green, at a reasonable pace. Let's not get hysterical, though. Let's be open to the truth. The Sky is not Falling. You are not a bad person if you buy a Hummer. You are not a saint if you own a hybrid.

You are a saint, though, in my mind, if you seek out the truth, and become a rational member of your democracy.

Al Gore is a demagogue, a typical Democrat. Don't be a typical liberal and buy his scam, hook, line and sinker.

For Your Research

Following are some of the sources I investigated. See them for yourselves and make up your own minds.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

Dr. Lindzen

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University. Lindzen is identified as a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995".

He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse."

In the same piece, Lindzen also wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."

Lindzen wrote that:

"As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this."

Of the Kyoto Accord, he claims there is no "controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels"

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."

I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."

Some Scientists Opposing the Theory of Global Warming

This page lists scientists, not necessarily involved in climate research, who have expressed doubt regarding the scientific opinion on global warming. The consensus has been summarized by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years.

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

If greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100, causing sea level rise and increasing some types of extreme weather. On balance, the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative.

This page is intended to highlight those scientists who have, since the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments openly opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.

Only scientists with a record of scholarship are included, and they must have been making specific statements, not merely participating in a poll or survey of opinion (for a general list including non-scientists, see global warming skeptics). This list is intended to be comprehensive, but is likely to be incomplete. Each scientist's opinions are stated without comment as to their validity or lack thereof.

The Earth is not warming

Since 2001, no climate scientists have expressed skepticism that warming, of the magnitude described by the IPCC, has occurred.

The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.

Claude Allegre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris):

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University:

David Deming, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5°C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."

The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities.

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content."

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006

William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65.

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "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. 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?"

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [20]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003)

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005.

Global warming is good for human society

This section contains scientists who accept that global warming will occur, but advocate the position that it will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at The University of Auckland, New Zealand: "The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years. ... Warming, from whatever cause, is more likely to produce economic benefits than economic losses."

Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.", Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World, co2science.org, Nov, 2003, p. 30.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)

Warming will not continue

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, Doctor of physics and mathematics, researcher at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol." (Russian News & Information Agency, Aug. 25, 2006)

General skepticism

The scientists in this section have expressed general doubt about global warming or have criticized aspects of the evidence, such as climate models. However, they are not known to have stated disagreement with the consensus conclusions listed at the beginning of this article.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute writes: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

Sixty Scientists call on Canadian Prime Minister to Revisit Global Warming Myths

Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming, from eco-logic Powerhouse.com, April 15, 2006, An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Visit Junkscience.com

Junkscience.com states:

Actual temperatures are difficult to measure.

Predictions of the future are based on computer models.

What caused the apparently massive temperature leap at the beginning of the 18th Century? It certainly wasn't industrialization, that hadn't happened yet. If such changes appear in the record during recent periods when people can not have caused them then they are by definition "natural" and, if such natural changes are evident in recent history, why are we so fixated on carbon dioxide as a "culprit" driving lesser warming now?

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

click to hide most of this section

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, global warming, demagoguery, environmentalism, liberalism, liberal, polar bears, arctic, pollution, CO2, greenhouse gasses, population, overpopulation, climate change

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth