UN Blowback: More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Originally posted by AgentOrangeJuice

Many scientists tell BS lies because they are paid to.

Quote from OP's article.

Original Article!

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - 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.
******SKIP******
“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.
******SKIP******
“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.
******SKIP******
“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.
******SKIP******
The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC'

Seems like, at least the scientists quoted in the article work in Unviversities or governments, not the private sector!

Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature”

21 Spotless Days and Solar Magnetic Field Still in a Funk

We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.

From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve included it below with the latest available update from December 6th, 2008:

There are sooo many factors that the UN scientists didn't figure in at the time when they started all this CO2 "Global Warming" it's ridiculous!

They jumped to conclusions and are now being criticized for their report.

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks melatonin for providing an accurate depiction of this.


On one side you have cynics who say "Follow the money" and employ out of work scientists with not much background to say "ITS FAKE"

On the other hand you actually have scientific communities concerned!

Hmmm, what does the UN's own data say now?

UN Data Shows Global Warming has Stopped

Kyoto was supposed to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012. But since it was signed, the atmospheric concentration of this putative pollutant continued to rise, pretty much at the same rate it did before Kyoto. [...] Since Kyoto, a very funny thing has happened to global temperatures: IPCC data clearly show that warming has stopped-even though its computer models said such a thing could not happen. According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big "El Niño," which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. [...] Even if the earth resumes warming at the pre-1998 rate, we will have nearly a quarter-century without a significant warming trend.

2008 Will Be Coolest Year of the Decade

Friday 5 December 2008

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

The global warming scare, whether real or generated is a good thing for the worlds people regardless. It spurred international cohesive action towards a "nearly" agreed upon result. It gave all companies looking towards the future with alternative energy a boost in business, and a chance to show that gas and oil doesn't always have to = power.

So if it is a scandal, I say let it continue. Returning to a one-way thinking pattern in regards to our electric, power and mobility scares me more than a little. I personally don't think that will happen anyway, because the "alternative" engine has already been fired up and is gaining momentum, and I don't believe that they can figure out how to turn it off. hehe

reply to post by jdub297


Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will see that 1,000 years ago Greenland was a net exporter of agricultural products. We need more global warming!

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Scientists lie about global warming, there is a global warming but we are not responsible, we cannot trust scientists any more?

But something is changing, and the change is accelerating. It is a very strong feeling.

Humans are rational. Always looking for reasons and explanations, and in our quest we have become so aware of ourselves that we actually started to think that we matter. That we're special in the greater scheme of things.
Well, of course if this is true then we must also be to blame for what happens to planet earth in the long run.
The problem is that somewhere along the way spin doctors realized that all this knowledge about biology and how the planet works in the solar system, and the solar system in the universe, is so vast and incomprehensible that the common man cannot contain or understand it, and seeing how we therefore like to be told what to think, feel and do, what was more obvious than to use these things against us?
The more you read that the heating of Earth is man-made the more you believe its true, right? Because if your neighbour, you boss, your wife and your dog believes it... well then it must be right, right?

We seem to forget that behind every little scientific study lies a stoodge ready to intrepret the value of its usability for a commercial or political agenda.

When governments are making deals over our heads, across borders and without comprehension, then they are selling our votes for the sake of power, money and political friendship.
I bet each of you can find a politician that looked aspiring, a hope for the people, during his or hers younger years. And then see them later, corrupted moraly towards the people they are supposed to govern, and their own ideals.
Oh, I wrote politician... basicly, I mean "person". This goes for scientists as well.

So no... you cannot trust scientists, or anyone claiming to be wise in matters of their field, simply because they don't know enough. None of them have shown capability of holding past events in the history of Earth together or even relate different parts of science to eachother. They ignorantly look at the present, and guess about the future when they should be looking at the past and learning from past events.
Apart from that there's no use of intuition and the logic that could evolve from this. Intuition in the objective sense. There's no... empathy. Only proclaimed logic.

But logic is: we have, winter, spring, summer, autumn. These fall at the same time every year. It's a cycle. Pretty simple.
The Earth revolves around the sun. A cycle.
The solar system revolves around in the galaxy. Another cycle.
Heck an even simpler cycle is, I eat then I crap.

We know there's been several iceages. After the iceage came something more mild, the something warmer and then at some point it goes back the other way. Let's not be so presumptious that anything we do or don't do is going to change this cycle or any of the others mentioned. Earth is going to fry and probably freeze too at some point.

Why are we discussing where the blame is to be put?
We should be discussing what to do when either scenario is happening again. Not that it matters, humanity is not supposed to last forever.

Having said that. I see no reason what so ever why we shouldn't switch completely to environmentally friendly energy. I think we can all agree that even though fossil fule usage might not contribute all that much to so-called global warming, it's definately not making our lounges better or the water taste nicer and since we are here, we might as well enjoy the ride as long as we can.
Our legacy IS NOT to earn as much money in a lifetime as we can, but to hand over the planet, we are borrowing, to the next generation in such a state that we would have been able to look ourselves in the mirror had we lived on.

Keep in mind... I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying, I believe they are wrong and that you can't trust them. I hold no alligience to anyone, I'm here on borrowed time, just like you guys. So I think it best to trust that strong feeling we've got.


Or put in other words. Green taxes and the prolonging of development within the sector of green energy is just another way to suck out as much money from the common man as possible. A spin at best...
You think it's going to be cheaper when we switch over to green energy? You're wrong. It's going to be the exact same thing, same price, same people controlling it. And you're going to pay the price, because you forgot how to say "no".

[edit on 14/12/08 by flice]

reply to post by masonwatcher


A complaint filed by someone who got fooled. lol. Good news to hear some dissent. I can't stand Al Gore The God claiming "no dissent amongst scientist" or "allow dissent" in the ranks of IPCC. It always sounded like propaganda. An open society needs dissent for checks and balances. Even if I disagree or agree is irrelevant. We won't know the politician's propaganda for what motives they may have. What I do know is Peak Oil, was promoted by the Oil group to raise oil prices, having some grain of truth, but being blown out of proportions. I was also involved in, but with economy crashing, the rigged prices, went to support the finances, also owned by the same owner (e.g. Rockefeller, Bush, etc.). As to Global Warming a colleague of mind, the agenda was the excuse to prevent third world and developing nations from gaining access and funding to electricity. The developed nations consortium, using Mercantile policies tactics, currently in vogue, has the greatest fear of competition, primary from China, India (and hence the engineered earthquake, Somalia Pirates, terrorist (CIA founded with ISI) , melamine and tsunami), and the developing country that is outstripping economic growth from developed country and may be too powerful economically. The G7 just simply don't want new members (imagine G100 - my god -equal representation!), see The Economic Hit Man, John Perkins. I am no genius, so excuse my stupidity, if you happen to know something I don't, you are free to blast me out off this universe. I will appreciate your effort of dissent.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by jdub297

 

Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will see that 1,000 years ago Greenland was a net exporter of agricultural products. We need more global warming!

That warming did not have anything to stop it from cooling back off again. Humans have quite possible made it so that it will never cool again.

Not sure how that will turn out. All I know, is that in the North we depended on harsh winters to kill off many insects each year.

reply to post by ANNED

It's cold now.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by jdub297

 

Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will see that 1,000 years ago Greenland was a net exporter of agricultural products. We need more global warming!

If it happens, it happens, but man did not cause it either way.

It is pure hubris to conclude, based on untested models, that man is capable of altering global climate.

Sure, we poluute ouselves out of many places, but they are miniscule and quickly recover once we let nature take its course.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
On this thread the article is talking about how scientists say GW is made up.

...the article is talking about how scientists are saying that the worst is yet to come with GW.

Which to believe?

One involves the media reporting scientific findings from experts in climate science, the other is an oil-funded politician deceiving you.

The most laughable piece of deception is the conclusion that man is capable of causing climate change of any sort. Ad hominem attacks do not change basic physics or the unbiased findings of even the IPCC data and instrumentation.

As I've pointed out several times in this thread alone, the point is not anyone's opinion about warming or cooling, but whether man is the cause.

Those associated with the "pro-GW" movment say man's dispersal of CO2 is causing unnatural warming, and that carbon caps and/or sequestration must be forced upon all the people of the world.

Those opposed, typically say that the data shows cooling, rather than warming, but that in either case, it is nature and not man the primary cause. Moreover, they push no forced agenda upon people that must be paid ultimately by tge individuals small farms and small businesses of the industrializedworld.

I don't give a rat's a** if the data ultimately show temps trending up or down; they will ultimately change. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let vested interests make me pay for their gimmicks, either way.

Are you willing to defend yourself before the World Climate Court now being proposed by PM Brown, which will have jurisdiction to enforce climate regs on individuals? Watch your emissions.

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by jdub297

 

Do a Google search for "Greenland Viking farming" and you will see that 1,000 years ago Greenland was a net exporter of agricultural products. We need more global warming!

Did we make it cease or cause it in the first place? No!

Send your cap and trade check, payable to A. Gore and /or IPCC, for 20% more than you can afford to throw out the window, today. The Global Climate Court will find you if you don't.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

That warming did not have anything to stop it from cooling back off again. Humans have quite possible made it so that it will never cool again.

Not sure how that will turn out. All I know, is that in the North we depended on harsh winters to kill off many insects each year.

We didn't warmit, or cool it. Nature did it.

You can't stop insects, yet you believe you can change the climate.

Are you willing to pay more for all resources, not just fossil fuel, for govt. to tilt at windmills. Fight the unbeatable foe. GW proponents also propose CO2 containment and sequestration as "the cure." They want you to pay for it.

How much more do you want to pay for your food, lighting, water and housing to fund these efforts? Has anyone pro-GW given you their guarantee that they'll get the results they promise for your "investment?"

Originally posted by jdub297
The most laughable piece of deception is the conclusion that man is capable of causing climate change of any sort. Ad hominem attacks do not change basic physics or the unbiased findings of even the IPCC data and instrumentation.

Ad hom? So bringing out facts about the source of this deceptive list is ad hom? Don't think so, it was sourced from a response to someone talking about Gore and lying politicians. It was a relevant comment and shows the information you base this thread on is politically motivated and, moreover, a pile of tosh.

Basic physics? Heh.

As I've pointed out several times in this thread alone, the point is not anyone's opinion about warming or cooling, but whether man is the cause.

Or perhaps a major cause. And the science clearly suggests we are.

Those associated with the "pro-GW" movment say man's dispersal of CO2 is causing unnatural warming, and that carbon caps and/or sequestration must be forced upon all the people of the world.

Those opposed, typically say that the data shows cooling, rather than warming, but that in either case, it is nature and not man the primary cause. Moreover, they push no forced agenda upon people that must be paid ultimately by tge individuals small farms and small businesses of the industrializedworld.

Dude, the data doesn't show recent cooling. Even if it did, it wouldn't be of any great significance on short timescales. But I understand the complexity is a bit too much at times.

You're just making pure assertions and spreading misinformation.





As you note, we shouldn't get too excited about small moves up or down, but we do need to follow long-term trends to assess climate.

I don't give a rat's a** if the data ultimately show temps trending up or down; they will ultimately change. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let vested interests make me pay for their gimmicks, either way.

And so money is your main motivator. Nowt to do with science or evidence.

Watch your emissions.

I try to.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Malynn


Hear.hear, my sentiments exactly, keep wallowing in your lovely oil you greasy bunch, there's plenty more where that came from...!
My hunch is that a brief warm period will be followed by an extensive cold spell, perhaps 10,000 years or more, time to make a move to the southern latitudes my friends,somewhere between 18 degrees north and south of the equator should be relatively safe, unless the local population do not take kindly to migrants that is .

Originally posted by melatonin
Ad hom? So bringing out facts about the source of this deceptive list is ad hom? Don't think so, it was sourced from a response to someone talking about Gore and lying politicians.


Dude, the data doesn't show recent cooling. Even if it did, it wouldn't be of any great significance on short timescales. But I understand the complexity is a bit too much at times.

You're just making pure assertions and spreading misinformation.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by melatonin]

You know that Hansen et al have acknowledged altering their data and resultant graphics after they were called on it, right?

How about unaltered records? Since 2004, temps are falling, to below 1980 levels! Click on this image to see current downward trends.





This link discusses his alteration of data and graphs.
Hansen Adjusts Heliogenic Trends to Show Warming Trends





The red graphs are altered, the blue are unaltered.

Talk about "facts and the source!" I guess I shouldn't have limited my liars to politicians and Gore, but should've included scientists.

650 is quite a few but how many still argue the case for the existence of AGW?

Also this is what makes science so intriguing, the fact that there is no unanimously accepted theory, there is always dissenting opinions. There are always those who think that things are not as they seem.

While it is a big deal for those who disbelieve AGW and hate Gore, as if he is some how responsible for the notion of AGW, it is not much of a story.

seems the first governments are releasing their plans of how they are going to make money out of climate change...

news.bbc.co.uk...

all this will do is make energy cost more..costs that will be passed on to the consumer.

to the people who claim these measures are good whether or not climate change is man made...do you REALLY think that oil companies will leave one barrel in the ground?..do you really think gas companies will leave one drop of gas in the ground?

of course not...all this does is make the oil and gas reserves last longer because people may use less......but...it will cost more...

all these measures will do is increase the profits of oil and gas companies over a longer period...and the same amount of CO2 will be generated because as ive already said...they will not just leave oil in the ground...they will burn every last drop of it regardless.

on another note...isnt it rather odd that our world has drastically changed over the last 100 years the internal combustion engine is basically the same?

alternative energy has been suppressed and continues to be...if governments were serious about climate change they would act differently..it would invest billions into its own alternative energy research..it would not simply tax the population.

oh...the world isnt getting warmer...just a little side note..

Originally posted by Animal
650 is quite a few but how many still argue the case for the existence of AGW?

Also this is what makes science so intriguing, the fact that there is no unanimously accepted theory, there is always dissenting opinions. There are always those who think that things are not as they seem.

While it is a big deal for those who disbelieve AGW and hate Gore, as if he is some how responsible for the notion of AGW, it is not much of a story.

well...he and his friends ARE responsible for the GW scam...google 'club of rome and global warming'

Originally posted by jdub297
You know that Hansen et al have acknowledged altering their data and resultant graphics after they were called on it, right?

How about unaltered records? Since 2004, temps are falling, to below 1980 levels! Click on this image to see current downward trends.

So what you're talking about is that there have been minor errors in the GISS data in the recent past.

Do you know the same is true of the data you are using? The UAH satellite data has been rehashed a number of times. For a time, it was the only data showing no warming, but then Christy and Spencer found out they had fluffed the analysis. IIRC, they mixed up their + and - signs.

And we're not talking about minor changes, it changed the whole outcome of the UAH data.

And finally, there are three data sets presented, not just GISS.

The current satellite data is not much different than the surface data:



Thus, all you are doing is looking at a very short timescale and getting lost in noise. The best you can say is that current temps have plateaued, and they have done that numerous times in the last 30 years. Yet they soon started to rise again.

If temps fall or plateau for about 25 years, then we might start to wonder about the influence. At this point, you are comparing a wicked La Nina year to recent past.

The temps so far this decade are on course to be 0.2'C warmer than than the 90s, the 90s were about .1-.2'C warmer than the 80s, which were warmer than the 70s. Even this last year, a La Nina year in which we expect cooler temps, will be about 0.1'C warmer than the average of the 1990s.

This link discusses his alteration of data and graphs.

I think I've found your problem. You're taking science from an not so reliable source. Since the inception of his blog, Watt has clearly shown his inability to understand basic stats and data. The source of the 4 data comparison above shows how incapable he is of understanding what he is waffling about - and tamino, a statistician with expertise in time-series analysis, has uncovered his schoolboy errors numerous times.

Just what are you trying to argue here? That temps haven't been warming for 30 years? That the GISS team fudge their data? The data that is essentially very comparable to the source you presented earlier (UAH)?

And we don't even need to rely on temperature data to be aware of the reality...

Arctic Ice:



Arctic sea ice at summer min:



Glacier thickness:



Sea levels:



Ocean heat:




And the best you have is the UAH graph that shows about 2 years of non-warming during a La Nina period, in a decade so far 0.2'C warmer than the last. lol.

Talk about "facts and the source!" I guess I shouldn't have limited my liars to politicians and Gore, but should've included scientists.

Those are pretty strong and libelous words. You have no evidence of such dishonesty. Just like the UAH team you used for you data, people make errors. I don't think Christy and Spencer were lying, they just fluffed the data analysis. It happens, and it was fixed.

All you have for GISS is one silly error in sewing the data together, which affected one small part of the data, and resulted in a negligible change.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by melatonin]