The End Of Matter?

[Zakuska]

Heres a nice peer reviewed paper for you:

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

 

Where 1077 Scientists express skepticism of Human caused AGW.

 

And another list... linked from above

1. ↵ 
   US Senate (2009). US Senate Minority Report: More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. Scientists continue to debunk ‘consensus’ in 2008 and 2009 (Updates previous report: More than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims). Available at:http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&.

And another:

 

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/us-senate-650-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/

 

 

I link these quotes:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

•••

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

•••

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.

•••

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.

•••

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
– Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar
interaction with the Earth.

•••

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based
on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for
example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of
Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

•••

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

•••

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,
as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide
scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical
and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

•••

“After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics
to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,
who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of
Monthly Weather Review.

•••

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large
number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian
geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

•••

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less
moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary
balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr.
Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was
once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

•••

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet
is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee
the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who
has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in
Sweden.

•••

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself
solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate
changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in
man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC
committee.

•••

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports
and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have
distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip
Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed
publications.

•••

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting
warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric
physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in
Pittsburgh.

•••

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give
some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” –
Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,
served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

•••

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present
alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major
businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” –
Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

•••

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

•••

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is
something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of
the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.

•••

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate
may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former
Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,
Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

•••

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored
more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

•••

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack
Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological
Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

•••

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” –
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at
the University of Colorado.

•••

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone
man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data
refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G
LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full
quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Heres a nice peer reviewed paper for you:

 

LOL are you being serious? That is not part of your paper. Who are the 700 scientist anyway?

 

and I never heard of Sage Journal, it is probably not a reputable journal. 

 

 

And another:

 

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/us-senate-650-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/

 

Now a blog? Where are the 700 climate researchers that disagree with the basics of the GW theory?

 

Let's just look at the first three of your list 

 

Ivar Giaever is not a climate researcher, according to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

 

Kiminori Itoh, According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals.

 

Arun D. Ahluwalia A search of Google Scholar returns no articles written by Ahluwalia on the subject of climate.

 

I won't look at the entire list, but nice try. Please give us a list of climate researchers that disagree with the basics of the GW theory. 

 

and be careful what you give me next time, you are wasting my time. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

You must have missed this:

 

 

 

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists [like that given by the IPCC; addition by authors], but a report that includes full biographies of … distinguished scientists … experts in..: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. (

US Senate, 2009, p. 7)

 

Its not a Blog... its a Minority Report that was debated on the floor of the Senate in 2008 & 2009. Which gave the names and credentials of the people "scientists" writing papers that the IPCC used as source material.

 

These 1077 "Scientists" were debated over on the Senate Floor in 2008 & 2009 to make heads or tails of all the miss information.

 

This ones for you from one of your own:

 

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_B._Goldenberg

Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

You must have missed this:

 

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists [like that given by the IPCC; addition by authors], but a report that includes full biographies of … distinguished scientists … experts in..: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. (US Senate, 2009, p. 7)

 

So where are the 700 climate researchers? LOL

 

 

Its not a Blog... its a Minority Report that was debated on the floor of the Senate in 2009. Which gave the names and credentials of the people "scientists" writing papers  that the IPCC used as source material.

 

but I already proved that the first three from your quotes are not climate researchers. Where are their scientific papers about climate? Do you know what a scientific researcher is? 

 

 

Ivar Giaever is not a climate researcher, according to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

 

Kiminori Itoh, According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals.

 

Arun D. Ahluwalia A search of Google Scholar returns no articles written by Ahluwalia on the subject of climate.

 

 

 

and I really don't care about a Senate report anyway 

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Where are their scientific papers about climate?

[Zakuska]

Ah but you should since its them who are making policy that effect me and you. They were tired of all the missinformation and so they made the minority report which reported on the people writing for the IPCC.  And not just "listed"... but reported on their credentials in the respective fields.

 

I think I might add this my new tag line:

 

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

It is a short list, and it includes death scientists. Thesometimesaint's list of scientific organizations is bigger.

Half of your list only disagrees with the IPCC projections, and most are not from a relevant field.  

 

 

Sounds like a four year olds reply.

 

Never mind content.

 

Mine is bigger than yours neener neener.

 

Mine is shinier.

 

Mine takes up more space.

[ERayR]

Where are their scientific papers about climate?

 

You forgot the foot stomping part.

[Zakuska]

I like this one for my signature line too:

Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The

global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the

millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” –

Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at

the University of Colorado.

[ERayR]

I like this one for my signature line too:

Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The

global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the

millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” –

Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at

the University of Colorado.

 

You can quote me too if you want but the closest I come to being a climatologist is my arthritic knees that signal weather changes.  Probably not good enough for skeptic.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 They were tired of all the missinformation and so they made the minority report which reported on the people writing for the IPCC.  And not just "listed"... but reported on their credentials in the respective fields.

 

Well, they didn't do a good job with the report, Here is a Paper that agrees with what I said in post 152

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/

 

In 2009 the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee published a report listing more than 700 scientist-skeptics expressing a spectrum of dissenting views, many questioning the role of anthropogenic emissions in climate change, although a few are quoted denying climate change altogether. James Inhofe (R–OK), ranking minority member of the committee that produced the report, represents the extreme right wing of his party and has received nearly a million dollars in donations from oil and coal companies since 2000.

The list was compiled by Inhofe’s staff without prior consent by the scientists themselves; Parkinson says some have requested to be taken off the list. Moreover, only 15% of the scientists listed had published in the refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.7 Precisely how these individuals line up with respect to their own political views and funding isn’t disclosed in the report and therefore can’t be easily discerned.

 

 

Remember, a climate researcher is someone that has a PhD in Climatology (or related field) and writes scientific papers about climate. 

So that means that I am still waiting for a list of climate researchers that disagree with the basics of GW theory. 

 

 

 Probably not good enough for skeptic.

 

You should be skeptical of the stuff that Zakuska presents. Read my response. 

 

 

 a Minority Report that was debated on the floor of the Senate in 2008 & 2009. Which gave the names and credentials of the people "scientists" writing papers that the IPCC used as source material.

 

There are millions of scientists in the US alone, 700 is kind of small. 

Edited August 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

You should be skeptical of the stuff that Zakuska presents. Read my response. 

 

 

 

I am skeptical about your stuff.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I am skeptical about your stuff.

 

Why? because it disagrees with your views? because you can't possibly be wrong? 

 

I proved that the Senate report is extremely flawed. 

 

You and Zakuska try to disprove the Paper I just quoted in post 161

Edited August 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Why? because it disagrees with your views? because you can't possibly be wrong? 

 

I proved that the Senate report is extremely flawed. 

 

You and Zakuska try to disprove the Paper I just quoted in post 161

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=hand+held+mirrors&biw=1545&bih=711&tbm=isch&imgil=T-s4cVHdU890iM%253A%253BsLy3bNvD7y0yPM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.amazon.com%25252FConair-Classique-Handheld-Mirror-Standard%25252Fdp%25252FB004V9RVZ8&source=iu&pf=m&fir=T-s4cVHdU890iM%253A%252CsLy3bNvD7y0yPM%252C_&usg=__yLTj6QY_Rfyl94NQ_8rJ5-mlK2g%3D&ved=0CFgQyjdqFQoTCIi6ycOLkscCFQ8Vkgod4PAICQ&ei=OhXCVYi1OI-qyATg4aNI#imgrc=T-s4cVHdU890iM%3A&usg=__yLTj6QY_Rfyl94NQ_8rJ5-mlK2g%3D

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=blinders&biw=1545&bih=711&tbm=isch&imgil=9qOmGhmvDStFPM%253A%253BcgYoOWMGlXatTM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25252Fwatch%25253Fv%2525253DdZDzC0ARTyA&source=iu&pf=m&fir=9qOmGhmvDStFPM%253A%252CcgYoOWMGlXatTM%252C_&usg=___B_xDR3T-4Ez6U6PU1QY_QpP2c8%3D&ved=0CDcQyjdqFQoTCL7yyYyMkscCFQ2OkgodOg0Pcg&ei=1BXCVb64AY2cygS6mryQBw#imgrc=9qOmGhmvDStFPM%3A&usg=___B_xDR3T-4Ez6U6PU1QY_QpP2c8%3D

 

The only thing you proved is you could find an opposing view.

 

Your juvenile demands that everybody agree with you are wearing quite thin.

Edited August 5, 2015 by ERayR

[TheSkepticChristian]

The only thing you proved is you could find an opposing view.

 

Your juvenile demands that everybody agree with you are wearing quite thin.

 

Did you read the paper? Why did the Senate report only quoted a few number of scientists (so-called climate researchers)? 

 

Why not quote all of the alleged 700 or 1000 climate researchers that disagree with the basics of GW theory in such an "important" report? 

 

and how come only 15% of the 700 wrote scientific papers about climate? 

Edited August 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Did you read the paper? Why did the Senate report only quoted a few number of scientists (so-called climate researchers)? 

 

Why not quote all of the alleged 700 or 1000 climate researchers that disagree with the basics of GW theory in such an "important" report? 

 

and how come only 15% of the 700 wrote scientific papers about climate? 

 

I am beginning to think you really don't have a clue.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am beginning to think you really don't have a clue.

Beginning?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why? because it disagrees with your views?

NO, because the stuff you bring to the table is very weak and it ignores all of the issues we raise. And you totally have ignored every thing we have brought up in the past. You brush it to the side. So, who is ignoring what?

[ERayR]

Beginning?

 

Sometimes I understate a little.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did you read the paper? Why did the Senate report only quoted a few number of scientists (so-called climate researchers)? 

 

Why not quote all of the alleged 700 or 1000 climate researchers that disagree with the basics of GW theory in such an "important" report? 

 

and how come only 15% of the 700 wrote scientific papers about climate? 

Buries head in sand. You are flailing about so bad it is really pathetic. You don't take this very serious? Is that because it goes against your world view? Talk about a world view back fire effect.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

thesometimesaint, 

 

My good response was deleted 

You should not have hit the delete button then.

[ERayR]

thesometimesaint, 

 

My good response was deleted 

 

Deleted for mercies sake.

Edited August 5, 2015 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

The global temperatures since 1880.

SEE http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

[TheSkepticChristian]

NO, because the stuff you bring to the table is very weak and it ignores all of the issues we raise

 

I do not ignore anything, perhaps you don't read or understand what I present?

I am sorry, but the arguments you present against it are flawed. 

 

Even if GW theory is false, your arguments remain flawed. 

 

 

I am beginning to think you really don't have a clue.

 

I have compassion for the poor, and I am not 100% convinced that GW theory is correct, but I will take it seriously just in case it is real. 

The consequences will be too big to just ignore it, even if there is only a 5% chance. 

 

Are you 100% convinced that GW theory is false? 

Edited August 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

I do not ignore anything, perhaps you don't read or understand what I present?

What you present against it is problematic. 

 

 

 

I have compassion for the poor, and I am not 100% convinced that GW theory is correct, but I will take it seriously just in case it is real. 

The consequences will be too big to just ignore it. 

 

Are you 100% convinced that GW theory is false? 

 

Gravity is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.