Global Warming Presentation

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

16 comments

Comments 1 - 10 of 16 previous next Post a comment

  • + guest3368bd Marlene Guadagnino 3 weeks ago
    I am a lay person. Been around too many years and have seen that MONEY & POWER are the base motivations of 99% of everything. You know all governments have so much money just sitting there. In order to release these monies one needs a ’trigger’. If approved, the flood gates are opened. This farcical Global warming is one such trigger. You can show irrefutable proof to US Congress but it won’t change anything. (Did having no weapons of destruction stop them going into Iraq?) By now so many businesses and so many people have secured employment and are tapping that very source of income in all countries. How can one possibly stop that? What people don’t see are the ulterior motives of the string pullers of this world. As long as people are kept busy with arguing, debating etc, these controllers just get on with their own agendas. Like Sport - the world is so made about it they are so absorbed to a point of eat, sleep and breathe it, they are unaware of what is taking back. Rule or control the masses and you are home and dry. So yes, I sound cynical but you can trace everything back to TWO things - MONEY & POWER
  • + DennisBussey Dennis Bussey 3 months ago
    “Drop CCC (Climate Change Crisis) and Cap & Trade legislation. It is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic.”

    This is the primary recommendation of American aerospace engineer Burt Rutan based on this analysis of the IPCC data on global warming: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rutanagwdataanalysis.pdf

    This in not a Climatologist’s study, and that doesn’t matter. Its merit derives from the value of his analysis and interpretation of data.

    Those who disagree with Mr. Rutan’s recommendation will need to demonstrate that his analysis is flawed. I don’t think it can be done, but am open to those who will try.
  • + DennisBussey Dennis Bussey 6 months ago
    Wouldn’t it be prudent to rethink this whole thing before we begin implementing federal policies designed to reduce the temperature of the earth? For those who suggest all the science and practical aspects have long ago been resolved, I encourage you to consider the following.

    It seems self evident that these four criteria need to be true before initiating government policies designed to change the temperature of the earth by decreasing carbon emissions:
    1. The earth’s temperature is increasing because of CO2 emissions.
    2. Mankind’s activities that cause CO2 to be emitted are causing the temperature increase.
    3. The projected temperature increase will lead to alarming problems.
    4. Man can reasonably correct the problem by reducing emissions of CO2.

    I suggest that science and logic do not support policies of reducing CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature. Current attempts to reduce CO2 are already having a negative effect on the world economy, and the problem will become much bigger if our country implements additional policies such as those contained in the Kyoto Treaty.
    I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I am open to be proven wrong about all of this, but before I change any of my positions, I would need to have persuasive authoritative answers to ten questions. Each would need to contradict my position. These answers need to be supported by science and logic as my positions have been. Our elected officials owe it to the citizenry to have clear answers to all of these questions before supporting positions designed to reduce CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature.

    Let’s walk through them.

    Question #1
    By how many degrees Fahrenheit will the earth’s temperature be reduced if the 1997 Kyoto Protocol goals are achieved? In what year will this is achieved? Now compare the original goals with what was actually achieved since 1997.

    What the comparison demonstrates is the futility of attempting to decrease the earth’s temperature by reducing CO2. The Kyoto Protocol was a serious attempt to do just that, and it makes sense to evaluate the accomplishments of the past 12 years and to expect similar results in the future if similar actions are taken. You will find that the most likely answer to these questions is that the actual temperature change was “an amount so small as to be immeasurable and insignificant.”
    In other words, it appears that the premise of reducing CO2 makes no sense. How can one argue that actions that produced results that are immeasurable and insignificant are worthwhile? Projecting insignificant changes even 100 years into the future still results in insignificant change. Any future action that is taken is only significant if there are measurable results, and so far nothing that has been implemented has resulted in any measurable change. After all, isn’t the purpose of taking action to stop global warming? Reducing CO2 is but a theoretical means to reach that goal.
    Even if one chooses to be oblivious to the important part, i.e. Kyoto’s failure to even theoretically influence the earth’s temperature, it’s instructive to review their results in meeting emission targets. You will find that in spite of genuine attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, the results were disappointing. This just demonstrates the futility of attempting to decrease the earth’s temperature by reducing CO2. Finally, these results are not encouraging for the potential success of future plans via new treaties, etc for even larger CO2 reductions than those intended by Kyoto.

    It is important to note that Kyoto, the EPA, our federal government’s leaders in energy policy, the state of California, and other like-minded states are aligned in their concern about CO2. They all consider it a problem, because they theorize it is causing global warming. They are not motivated to control CO2 as an air pollutant in the traditional sense as a health issue but want to control it, because they believe it causes global warming which they see as a risk.

    Question #2
    Which countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve their greenhouse gas reduction goals, why did they come up short, and what could/should they have done to meet the targets? What negative impacts, if any, has this had on the participating countries?

    Question #2 is intended to expose that while it’s easy to proclaim future CO2 reductions, the doing part is a whole other issue. As they say, “It’s more easily said than done.” As a practical matter, how is it reasonable to expect those countries who tried so hard to meet Kyoto emission targets during the last 10 years will do better the next time presumably with emission targets that are much more stringent? Idealism feels good, but isn’t it also essential to be realistic?

    A sub part of #2 is intended to explore what negative impacts Kyoto adherents may have experienced. Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid provides an answer with this study:

    http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public...

    Here are some highlights:

    “Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.”
    “Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job.”
    “No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
    “… the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
    “ “Green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,”
    “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made.’

    Nevertheless, it appears our current administration is determined to follow Spain’s lead. President Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.

    Either the information I presented is invalid, or President Obama’s plan is ill-conceived. I see no way around this conclusion.
  • + DennisBussey Dennis Bussey 6 months ago
    Question #3
    How much will legislation the US Congress is considering cost, and what is the exact anticipated temperature reduction?

    Refer to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/waxman_markey_wont_work.pdf, which I quote in part:

    “Full implementation of the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill of 2009 would reduce mean global surface temperature by. ooo45-.0045F/year at a cost of $60-600 trillion for each 1.8F reduction in mean global surface temperature.
    Reducing temperature by 1.8F via the bill would take 400-4000 years ”.

    It is also important to also consider that the bill’s mandate to cut CO2 emissions by five-sixths by 2050 threatens shutdown of five-sixths of today’s US economy, which would, in the energy producing structure of today, in effect allow electricity and automobile use for just one day per week.

    If this seems unreasonable or unscientific, then demonstrate the science to refute it.

    Question #4
    Does the available science truly justify the authoritative conclusion that manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming? Can we really be so confident that natural factors, for example the sun, are not chiefly responsible?
    Question #4 is another way of asking, “Who are we to believe concerning the science of global warming?” I have often heard that there is a consensus of scientists on the manmade side, and dissenters are to be discounted due to their ulterior, even corrupt, motives. I recognize question #4 could sink into a bottomless pit of point/counterpoint that could leave even the clearest minds spinning in confusion. I am nevertheless concerned that those with other viewpoints are either ignored or discredited, and the public is only getting one side of the issue.
    In responding to my question #4, I invite you to consider these three points:
    1. Author Lawrence Solomon set out to see if any “real” scientists dissent from the premise that man is responsible for global warming. Solomon discovered that on every “headline” global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, those scientists were far more accomplished and eminent. His findings are chronicled in his book The Deniers.
    2. Consider this article of April 8, 2009 titled “It’s the Sun, Stupid!” by Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue129/090404cul.asp. I have no doubt that other scientists can produce studies that would disagree with Dr. Soon’s theory on the influence of the sun on global warming. My point here is that Dr. Soon would tell you that his voice is given minimal regard compared to the megaphone type attention given to those with theories supporting manmade global warming. I believe the same imbalance applies to all the scientific voices dissenting from the manmade global warming theory.
    3. I suggest the often-stated “consensus of scientists” argument is so seriously flawed it does not deserve to be taken seriously. Refer to the comments in this presentation where that case is made. http://www.slideshare.net/DennisBussey/global-warming-presentation/
    Question #5
    Computer models, upon which the theory of manmade global warming depend, predict that the air 10 kilometers above the tropics at the equator would be a “hot spot” which would reflect a “manmade green house signature.” The empirical data, demonstrate, however that the “hot spot” is missing. Explain this and provide the scientific evidence that manmade greenhouse gasses are causing global warming.

    Question #5 goes to the heart of my second criteria from the onset, i.e. man’s actions in emitting CO2 are causing the temperature increase. There is no empirical information in any scientific study that demonstrates man is causing global warming. There are theories but no facts to support this. An obvious theory to consider is the air 10 kilometers above the tropics at the equator. Those supporting the theory of manmade global warming need a sound scientific answer to this. Find it if you can, but I don’t believe science has demonstrated a “manmade greenhouse signature.” Wouldn’t you agree we need something more than a theory, something like empirical evidence about all this?
  • + DennisBussey Dennis Bussey 6 months ago
    Question #6
    The theory of manmade global warming requires that temperature rise is driven by the rise of CO2. Ice cores however, reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperature.
    Explain this apparent contradiction.

    Similarly, question #6 challenges the validity of the manmade GW theory which supposes CO2 leads temperature increases while science demonstrates the reverse is case.

    Question #7
    Given the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere during different periods of time, the computer models mentioned in question #5 would have predicted the temperature to rise during the 1940’s to the 1970’s and then again from about 2001 to the present. During both periods the computer models did not predict what actually happened. Since we know the computer models are wrong during our lifetimes, how can we be confident they will be accurate 50 and 100 years in the future?
    Question #7, speaks again to the validity of climate models. Where is the wisdom in justifying highly disruptive worldwide actions based on mathematical models we know are wrong?
    It seems reasonable that before using mathematical models to justify public policy, we should demand climate models that actually validate historical, empirical data. At this point, they are not even close. If the local weatherman or weather.com consistently predicts that it’s going to rain tomorrow, and it doesn’t rain for ten years, we’ll be wise to stop carrying umbrellas. It seems reasonable to begin taking climate models seriously only when they demonstrate they can reasonably and accurately explain why the earth has experienced no warming in the past 10 years while CO2 emissions have been increasing.
    Question #8
    What makes us so confident that even if warming were to occur, that catastrophe would ensue? A fair-minded review of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict catastrophe. This appears to be an example, like in question #4, where an inordinate amount of attention has been paid to one side of the argument, and the public has not been given a sensible perspective.

    Question #9
    What about plans already implemented by our government that have done more harm than good? Example: millions of people around the world face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production. It is now quite clear, even to the general media, that corn-based ethanol was a mistake and costs more to produce than what it saves, not to mention the increasing costs of grain. Fixing this problem should be easy for the government. They could start with eliminating the subsidies to the ethanol manufacturers and then repealing the ethanol fuel production mandates. The free marketplace would resolve the issue after that when nobody would buy the ethanol.

    As a first order of business by our government, doesn’t it make sense to focus on correcting the problems previously created before initiating new suspect programs?

    Question #10
    Even if manmade global warming were a problem, wouldn’t it be more sensible to adapt to the new temperature rather than launch into a “mission impossible” scheme to change the temperature of the earth? Wouldn’t adaptation as (and if) necessary be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful?

    In summary, it appears that government policy designed to reduce CO2 for the purpose of reducing the earth’s temperature is illogical and lacks scientific justification. From an economic standpoint it is most foolish. All of the proposed solutions will punish the private sector and are ultimately designed to provide revenue to governments around the world to be spent for political purposes, not for improving the environment and preventing global warming.
    Dennis Bussey
  • + gueste181165 gueste181165 8 months ago
    I am a skeptic. Every scientist knows that carbon dioxide makes no difference whatsoever.even if you triple or double the amount of global warming emissions, there will be practically no effect or change.
  • + guestccd08c guestccd08c 8 months ago
    UN IPCC is only claiming global warming to make money. Over 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming causes. Read this: http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2513. I am a skeptic. I think UN IPCC is outrageous for making up garbage like that.
  • + DennisBussey Dennis Bussey 2 years ago
    Here’s some current information that I believe will enlighten the serious minded attempting to grapple with the complexities of global warming science.

    There is no doubt that the United Nations IPCC’s version of global warming is winning the public relations battle. The proof is that our governments are now implementing public policy intended to reduce the rise of the earth’s temperature.

    For those who are paying serious attention however, it is increasingly difficult to comprehend how they can justify discounting the growing chorus of dissenting views and agreeing with VP Gore that dissenters are corrupt quacks.

    Here are two current examples:

    UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
    If all these guys are quacks, then Donald Duck deserves new respect.

    Then there’s this report that challenges the validity of IPCC’s climate models:
    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

    The study’s conclusion is worthy of serious consideration:
    “Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
    In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

    While the global warming alarmists have done a masterful public relations job in promoting their agenda, they are losing badly in the areas of science, logic and common sense.

    Dennis
  • + DennisBussey Dennis Bussey 2 years ago
    Thank you again guest549d27 for taking the time to review my presentation and providing your comment. I gather from your remarks that you are troubled with that portion of my presentation related to Dr. Richard S. Lindzen. For the benefit of others who may read this exchange, I will repeat that part. It is on slide #19 titled “Skeptics Beware” where I quote Dr. Lindzen’s remarks as follows:
    “Scientist who dissent from the alarmist have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.
    There are peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”
    Young scientists today who dare to stray from the alarmist dogma of man-made global warming often have to choose between silence through intimidation or jeopardizing their employment.
    Only the most senior scientists today can withstand up against the alarmist gale and defy the climate scientist, advocates and policymakers.”
    guest549d27, it is my understanding that all of Dr. Lindzen’s above comments are factually correct. I will welcome any evidence you have to the contrary. Failing this, it appears your comment is irrelevant.
    I suggest guest549d27 there are more important details to consider in the dialogue regarding global warming. For example consider these facts:
    1. The earth has been in a warming trend the past 10,000 years.
    2. There has been approximately a 1 degree Celsius rise in the past 100 years (and that’s assuming the measurements can be trusted).
    3. There has actually been no temperature increase in the past 10 years, and temperatures have actually gone down the past 7 years. There is nothing in the mathematical models that would explain this decline.
    4. Based on sound geological data, CO2 historically has been a lagging indicator of warming, usually showing up several hundred years AFTER temperatures increase.
    5. Several other uninhabited planets and moons in the solar system have had similar temperature increases that are apparently due to solar activity, not human produced CO2.
    6. Human produced CO2 is very insignificant, maybe 1%, of all of the other warming gasses (the cattle on the earth, belching methane, contribute more to global warming than human produced CO2)
    7. According to most experts on both sides of the argument, all of the proposed solutions to global warming will have essentially no impact on the earth’s temperature and primarily involve taking money from the more affluent countries and giving it to the poorer countries.
    Regards,
    Dennis
  • + guest549d27 guest549d27 2 years ago
    Guitar man ps unimpressed with the denialists biggest gun:

    Richard S. Lindzen!

    Give me a break!

    They better not let him have any say in the global warming report!!!!



    And for good reason. In 2001, Lindzen and others told the new Bush Administration the last IPCC report was wrong and didn’t represent the latest or the best science. To investigate that claim, the National Academies of Science assigned a panel to the review the IPCC work. Lindzen was on the panel and co-wrote the report. The NAS report states:



    'The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. … Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years' (Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, p.3).



    Lindzen was also part of a 1970s group that wrote the Charney Report. It provided the first top-level warning to government officials of the threats that loomed ahead.



    Lindzen isn’t a climatologist, he is a dynamicist. He studies how the wind blows.

    Talking slow and in a deep voice like Lindzen are good qualifications for documentary narrators. They don’t make him convincing to his science colleagues.



    It’s only natural for people to be angry when others try to fool them. This has benefits, like strengthening social bonds and promoting good behavior and honesty. Let me suggest it might be prudent to reserve some of yours for the decades ahead, I think you will find a new use for it. Your audiences certainly will.

Comments 1 - 10 of 16 previous next

Post a comment
Embed Video
Edit your comment Cancel

17 Favorites & 3 Groups

Global Warming Presentation - Presentation Transcript

  1. The great global warming trial. Will you be an alarmist or a skeptic?
  2. GLOBAL WARMING ALARM!
  3. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, and there is nothing realistic that mankind can do to significantly change the global temperature.
    • An established belief thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
    • Examples include:
    • Judaism, Christianity and Islam
    • Belief that 9/11 was a conspiracy
    • Beat Army!
    • Global warming
    • There is no discussion , no alternative science , or no weather experts that advocates of man made climate change creating imminent peril for the planet will listen to.
    • ” The debate is over!”
    • The media
    • The schools
    • The politicians
    • The organizations
    • Demonizing the unbelievers
    • An Inconvenient Truth
    • When asked why his 60 Minutes does not include the views of global warming skeptics:
    • “ It would be difficult to find a scientist worth his salt who would suggest this wasn't happening . It would probably be someone whose grant has been funded by someone who finds reducing fossil fuel emissions detrimental to their own interests . There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible . "
    • 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley,
  4. Media Research Center
    • “ Polar bears starting to turn up drowned and at some point will become extinct due to global warming .”
    • Time magazine
    • “ The world population of polar bears has mushroomed from 5,000 in the 1960s to about 25,000 today.
    • The 2 of the 20 subgroups that are declining live in regions in which the temperatures have been dropping over the past 50 years.
    • The 18 subgroups that have seen an increase live in areas that have been getting warmer.
    • It’s just silly to predict the demise of polar bears based on media-assisted hysteria. The future of polar bears is secure.”
    • Dr. Mitchell Taylor , Polar Bear Biologist, Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada
    • ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • ” Clearly, any warming that has occurred has not had an adverse impact on polar bear numbers. This is true of the polar bear populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and other nations.”
    • Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    • The New York Times reported Dec, 23, 2007
    • “ As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy . This is a real issue. Now, today . It is not something a crazy environmentalist is warning about.”
    • The New York Times did not report:
    • “ Italy’s tropical virus is a result of modern transportation, not global warming .”
    • Professor Paul Reiter Director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Institute Pasteur, Paris.
    • -
    • Humans are heating the earth .
    • Devastation if we don’t change the way we live.
    • Polar caps will melt
    • Ocean levels will rise .
    • Droughts, floods, and chaos.
    • Malaria will kill many people .
    • Extinction of plants and animals .
    • “ Human-caused global warming is a certainty .”
    • General Electric will spend $1.5 billion a year to research the emission of greenhouse gases .
    • United States Catholic Conference of Bishops , National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches , declare:
    • "Global warming is a universal moral challenge,"
    • October 2007 Newsletter summarized a recent lecture, “The Climate Crisis: Answer the Call”. Invited members to individually work in promoting public awareness .
    • Repeated these words from the lecture:
      • preserve our planet for our children
      • catastrophic floods
      • disappearing glaciers
      • 2005 was the hottest year to date
      • less than 10 years to stabilize the situation
    • Greenland’s Warming Island
    • “ If global warming needed a poster child, here it is .”
    • Dennis Schmitt, 2005 discoverer of Warming Island and tour operator with Betchart Expeditions.
    • “‘ Climate change denier ’ – is used to mark out certain people as immoral , untrustworthy . It is deeply pejorative . It is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust denial .”
    • Richard D North, author of Rich is Beautiful: A Very Personal Defense of Mass Affluence
    • “ Scientist who dissent from the alarmist have seen their grant funds disappear , their work derided , and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse .
    • There are peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature , such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”
    • Young scientists today who dare to stray from the alarmist dogma of man-made global warming often have to choose between silence through intimidation or jeopardizing their employment .
    • Only the most senior scientists today can withstand up against the alarmist gale and defy the climate scientist, advocates and policymakers.”
    • Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Soan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
    • “ We should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg .”
    • David Roberts, staff writer for Grist journal
    • “ Intellectually Exhilarating! An Inconvenient Truth is a necessary film”
    • A.O. Scott, New York Times
    • “ It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it ” Upton Sinclair
    • “ What changed in the US with Hurricane Katrina is we entered a period of consequences .” Al Gore
    • “ You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to . ”
    • Roger Ebert, movie critic
    • Examining the science
    • 1. Man made CO2 causes it.
    • 2. Computer models predict it will get much worse.
  5. carbon dioxide graph by Robert Simmon, NASA temperature graph from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies “ It is the scientific basis for the whole anxiety we have about climate change caused by human beings."
  6. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    • “ Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
    • Thomas Huxley, 19 th century English biologist.
    • Were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21 st centuries to occur in this room during my talk, most of the people in this room would be unaware of it .
    • How can a one degree F increase in temperature since the late 19 th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes ? And how can it translate into claims about future catastrophes ?
    • Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Soan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
    • US surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) per century .
    • Highest temperature in history was 136 degrees F in Libya, 1922
    • Lowest temperature in history was -128 degrees F in Antarctica, 1983
    • Max to min was 264 degrees F
    • US National Climatic Data Center 100 C = 212 F
    • The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites , and they show no overall change since 1999 .
    • That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2 , because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing .”
    • Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist Journal
    • Keigwin, L. D. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  7. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN
  8. Keigwin, L. D. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA and MIT
    • “ So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of the estimated quantities that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty .”
    • T.V. Segalstad, University of Oslo, Norway
    • How does CO2 effect temperature?
    • “ The journey to the answer is immensely complex and no one can say absolutely what the effect is.
    • The greenhouse effect amplifies solar warming of the earth. Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the Earth’s atmosphere, through combined convective readjustments and the radiative blanketing effect, essentially decrease the net escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation . Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth’s atmosphere. The path of this radiative input is complex. It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean . When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond?
    • The IPCC uses a worst-case-scenario hypothesis. Their theory projects a dramatic temperature increase .
    • Skeptics use experimental evidence with real world data . They conclude that while CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has not been experimentally detected.”
    • Roy Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA ‘s Marshall Space Flight Center
    • Cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds . The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world .
    • Demonstrated the theory in his laboratory in 2006.
    • Henrik Svensmark , Director of Danish National Space Center
    • If the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%.
    • H. E. Landsberg Director of the Taunus Observatory of Geophysics and Meteorology, University of Frankfurt, Germany
    • " All calculations about the greenhouse effect and global warming assume cloud cover isn't changing. But the Danish scientists have demonstrated cloud cover does change. The question of cloud cover, is the most critical unanswered question in the entire global warming debate.”
    • Richard Muller, University of California, Berkeley
  9. The total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%.” Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University   % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % man made   Water vapor 95.000%    94.999% 0.001%     Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%    3.502% 0.117%     Methane (CH4) 0.360%    0.294% 0.066%    Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%    0.903% 0.047%     Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%    0.025% 0.047%     Total 100.00%    99.72 0.28%  
  10.  
  11.  
    • “ Climate models have yet to produce reliable results. An analysis of 22 climate models found their predictions at odds with actual warming over the past 30 years .” David H. Douglass, Climate scientist, University of Rochester
    • "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.
    • Hendrik Tennekes, Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    • “ Models used by the IPCC are incoherent and invalid.”
    • Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scien tists
    • When discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory . Therefore , the multitude of empirical observations favors celestial phenomena over the IPCC theoretical model. Jan Veizer, University of Ottawa
    • “ The Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly” Dr Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany
    • “ Some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.” Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley
    • Carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. 2005 data from NASA' s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions
    • “ A simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made . Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia
    • "At least since 1989, Triton , Neptune’s largest moon , has been undergoing a period of global warming ," Astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    • Storms on Saturn indicate a climate change occurring on that planet . NASA
    • Pluto is undergoing global warming . Over the past 14 years , the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Astronomer James Elliot
    • U.S. National Climatic Data Center
  12.  
    • “ THE DEBATE IS OVER”
    • A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
    • "The scientific debate is over , We're done. Scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry .”
    • Miles O'Brien , CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent, July 23, 2007
    • 2004 - 2007
    • Only 7% of all published scientists explicitly endorse global warming theory .
    • Science researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, london
    • UNITED NATIONS
    • A CLOSER LOOK
    • “ The United Nations IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists.”
    • “ It is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. “
    • Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter .
    • ( An open letter to the United Nations Secretary-General. December 18, 2007.
    • “ Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”
    • Endorsed by more than 100 prominent international scientists such as:
    • Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists
    • Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology“, University Of Wisconsin
    • " There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere .“ Signed by over 19,000 American scientists . Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD .
    • ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • " ‘Man-made climate change is real.” and “Climate catastrophe is looming.” Neither of these fears is justified .“ 2006 letter to Canada's Prime Minister signed by 60 experts in climate-related fields
    • ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • "We cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that predicts climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions .“- 2005 Leipzig Petition signed by about 80 prominent scientists and academics
    • Global warming is a false myth, and every serious person and scientist says so. The United Nations panel IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”
    • “ Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”
    • President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus
    • “ Politicians and journalists show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.”
    • "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees.”
    • “ Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
    • Nigel Calder, author of Einstein’s Universe and former editor of New Scientist
    • “ IPCC has changed the nature of scientific investigation
    • from: Observation---interpretation---conclusion to: Idea---modeling to prove the idea---lobbying to endorse the scenario”
    • Nils-Axel Morner, President International Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Stockholm University, Sweden
    • ALARMISTS SAY
    • SKEPTIC SAYS
    • Antarctica represents the greatest threat to the globe from global warming, bar none .
    • “ Due to natural currents”
    • Antarctic, ice is growing, not shrinking . That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. Duncan Wingham, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation , London
    • ALARMIST SAY
    • SKEPTICS SAY
    • Proof that human activities are propelling a slide toward climate calamity .
    • “ It’s the wind”
    • “ Polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would ”
    • Arctic = 3 million square KM- shrinking Antarctic = 16 million square KM growing
    • Net change in ice area +5%
    • Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory , Pasadena
    • ALARMIST SAY
    • SKEPTICS SAY
    • “ Global warming may raise the oceans 23 feet , submerging cities from Sidney to New York .”
    • Jonathan Gregory , climate scientist at the University of Reading in England
    • “ IPCC predicts one foot “
    • “ I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let’s put it this way: There’s no one who’s beaten me.”
    • “ The rise rate is not more than
    • 4.3 inches per century”
    • Nils-Axel Morner, President International Commission on Sea-Level Changes Stockholm University, Sweden
    • “ It is vital that the international community base its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement .” Pope Benedict XVI
    • An England court ruled it is “ alarmists and exaggerated ”.
    • scientific errors
    • - Claims Polar bears died from global warming . Whereby the evidence is that only 4 bears downed because of a storm.
    • - Suggests Sea level would rise 20 feet in the near future. Whereby evidence is that that could occur only over thousands of years.
    • - Contrary to the film, there is no evidence melting snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming
    • - Claims Antarctic ice is melting . Evidence is that it is increasing .
    • - Suggests Hurricane Katrina is related to global warming . Evidence is that is not possible .
    • “ Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is One-Sided (26) , Misleading (15) , , Exaggerated (8), Speculative (26), and Wrong (18) ”. Marlo Lewis, Jr.
    • Marlo Lewis, Jr. The Competitive Enterprise Institute Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
    • Twelve errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s presentation at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, 4 Dec. 2007 Christopher Walter Monckton
    • Gore emphasized heat-related deaths.
    • By 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold . Global warming will actually save lives .
    • Bjorn Lomborg, Danish statistician
    • "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic . It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.“
    • Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
  13.  
    • " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, the Kyoto Protocol would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures.”
    • Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, University of Virginia, former director of the US Weather Satellite Service
    • “ It is alleged that global warming will cause heat deaths, increase the sea level, make hurricanes more intense, increase flooding, give rise to more malaria, starvation and poverty . And don’t forget about the polar bears .
    • The problem with this analysis is that it overlooks a simple but important fact. Cutting CO2 - even substantially - will not matter much with any of the above problems .”
    • Bjorn Lomborg Danish statistician and author
    • “ If the entire world were to adopt a 43-mpg fuel economy standard , the net effect would reduce projected warming an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable .”
    • Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center , National Space Science and Technology Center, Huntsville, Alabama
    • “ The total de-industrialization of the United States might not be enough” FreedomWorks
    • “ There is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow climate changes." Patrick J. Michaels , Research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia. Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming.
    • THE PLAN
    • Reduce emissions 50 percent below our 1990 levels by 2050.  
    • THE PAYOFF
    • Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 0.0015 percent in year 2100
    • THE PRICE
    • Electricity prices to rise by 40 percent
    • Reduced standard of living totaling $3,000 per year per household.
    • 57,000 people losing their jobs
    • 2.3 percent reduction in the state's annual gross state product
    • supported by studies of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, the Congressional Budget Office, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration
    • -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • " We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.“
    • Former President Bill Clinton, January 31, 2008
    • Congressional Budget Office report of April 25, 2007 informs:
    • 1. Lieberman-McCain bill imposes more than $3,500 on families each year .
    • 2. Most of the cost would be borne by consumers , through higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline . Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear the largest burden .
    • 3. Kyoto proponents concede that it would have virtually no impact on the climate .
    • “ Port Commissioners of Washington State , solely on the basis of Gore’s claims , are proposing to increase the height of the sea-walls by 20 feet . Real economic and environmental harm is now being caused “ Christopher Monckton
    • Sweden to Study Belching Cows . Associated Press, January, 21, 2008
    • Thanks to global warming, German sun worshippers may enjoy a cocktail on a Baltic Sea beach in early May. Olaf Stamp, German journalist
    • Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D., Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D.
    • “ Preserving the environment
    • Conserving energy
    • Providing for clean air and water
    • Developing alternative forms of power
    • Reducing our dependence on oil
    • Each stands on it’s own benefits. Let us join together to make them happen.
    • While parts of fighting global warming have benefits that overlap these, let us not delude ourselves into believing we can change the world’s temperature.”
    • Dennis Bussey, cow milking champion
    • All the planets have experienced global warming, and the earth is no longer warming.
    • Consensus of scientists is a myth. Many reputable scientists believe mankind is not causing global warming.
    • There is nothing realistic that mankind can do to significantly change the global temperature . Fighting global warming would have a huge price and virtually no impact.
    • "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.“
    • Nobel Prize winning French novelist Andre Gide
  14.  
    • “ Al Gores movie was justly praised as a proper representation of the science of global warming.”
    • Q1: What about all the planets that are experiencing global warming?
    • A1: It’s a coincidence
    • Q2: How can we have global warming if the earth hasn’t warmed for the last 8 years?
    • A2: That’s a tough one. The satellite data was fine when it indicated the earth was warming. My theory is the satellite machinery has been broken the last 8 years.
    • Q3: From UCSD student. I want to save the planet, but how can I get excited about immediately doubling the price of gas as you say is necessary?
    • A3: President Kennedy inspired the nation to go to the moon. In our youths we marched on campuses and stopped the war in Vietnam. It is now your turn to take a stand.
    • The older generation cannot be trusted. You, the youth, must take the initiative to save the world.
    • Q4: Why has global warming become political?
    • A4: Democrats are serious about science and are genuinely concerned about doing good.
    • Conversely, Republicans are greedy and corrupted by big business and the fossil fuel industry.
    • A 5% CO2 change correlates with a one degree Celsius temperature rise as 650,000-year ice core records reveal.
    • From 1900 to 2006, the world CO2 increased 30%.
    • Alarmist theory is that CO2 is driving up the temperature at a linear rate.
    • 5% x 6 = 30% CO2 increase
    • 1 degree C x 6 = 6 degree C temperature increase
    • In fact the increase was .5 degrees C between 1900 and 2006.
    • “ 650,000-years of empirical evidence therefore invalidates the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.”
    • David Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    • U.S. Average Household Energy Consumption:
    • Annual household electricity use: 10,660 kwh / household
    • Annual household emissions: 22,880 pounds CO2 / year
    • Car emissions factor: 11,500 pounds CO2 / car / year
    • Sources: Census Bureau, Energy Information Administration, Environmental Protection Agency
    • "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena . Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences." William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
    • “ Carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it “.
    • "There is new work that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation .” 
    • . Ian Plimer, The University of Adelaide
    • “ There is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming . geologist, Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook in Australia
    • Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute:
    • "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming . “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect . This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it .”
    • Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorological Weather Center
    • “ The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming .  The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,”
    • The argument that human CO 2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up . Furthermore, the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling .“ Timothy F. Ball, Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg
    • "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO 2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO 2 , which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapor response to warm the atmosphere . This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models .”
    • Ian Clark, hydro geologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    • Global warming is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity . There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole “ Tad Murty, oceanographer, University of Ottawa
    • “ There is no meaningful correlation between CO 2 levels and Earth's temperature . In fact, when CO 2 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 . Tim Patterson, climatologist and Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
    • IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a PhD meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:
    • “ To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process .” 
    • Czech-born climatologist Dr. George Kukla:
    • “ The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid .”
    • “ Cosmic rays have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2. During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds--and a warmer world .”
    • “ Global temperature has not risen since 1999 .”
    • Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at the Danish Space Research Institute Center
    • Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron . The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate . Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true . Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm .“ Philip Stott, professor emeritus, University of London
    • Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant :
    • “ To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming ) has been discovered . And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
    • Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland:
    • “ The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases ."
    • Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology , Risks, and Environment in Lyon
    •   “ Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance . ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us !”
    • Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany:
    • “ I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert , i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong ,”  
    • B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India:
    • “ We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
    • Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists who has published over 800 scientific papers:
    • “ Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
    • Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
    • “ Temperature changes , as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
    • Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute
    • “ I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting entirely without merit ,”
    • “ I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat : just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
    • "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming ' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible '. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed .”
    • The main purpose of the IPCC ‘Summary for Policymakers’ report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so .”
    • Gray has called for the IPCC to be abolished , claiming it is "fundamentally corrupt”
    • Vincent R. Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel , founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
    • “ There has been no statistically-significant increase in mean global surface temperature since the 2001. “Global warming” has stopped .”
    • Question to the IPCC lead author. “ As the world temperature has failed to rise now for seven years , how many more years of the same would convince him to give up the pretence that the IPCC’s predictions have any connection with reality?” Answer came there none.
    • Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand, at 2007 Bail conference
    • Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC :
    • “ It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction .”
    • " Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation .”
    • “ Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century.”
    • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Chief of the Space Exploration Department of the Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
    • Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
    • “ Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,”
    • Dr. Kelvin Kemm, South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation:
    • “ The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
    • Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country:
    • “ It's very interesting to study climate change, but there's no need to be worried ”
    • Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University:
    • “ By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only the temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium."
    • “ Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate .” 
    • “ The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
    • This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. 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 .
    • Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful . To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
    • The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world , especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in underdeveloped countries.
    • Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
    • David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:
    • “ The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not . The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this. The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
    • Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists:
    • “ Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem .”
    • Forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming are in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed. Climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial .
    • Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute
    • “ Neither the number nor intensity of storms is increasing" Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers.
    • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports Antarctic sea ice in 2007 reached its largest extent in recorded history . “While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere [Antarctica] has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979,”
    • Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the, International Climate and Environmental, Change Assessment Project .
    • “ The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” David Douglas, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
    • “ Global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2 .” David Douglas, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
    • “ Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes . We are not that influential . Global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people . So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more ” William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado state University
    • “ The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air .“ Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    • "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age , not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin
    • “ Human-induced climatic changes are negligible .” George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California
    • " There'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. Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    • “… we shall see a stabilization of frequencies for a while, followed by potentially another upward swing if global warming continues unabated.”
    • Published in the Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society , 2007
    • Greg Holland, Director of Mesoscale and Microscope Meteorology Division, Boulder Colorado
    • “ There should be no rise whatsoever in potential intensity or frequency of hurricanes due to global warming for the next 150 years.”
    • Published 2007 in Nature .
    Gabriel Vecchi, Research Scientist Brian J. Soden, University of Miami National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
    • How the media reported it:
    • Philosophical Transactions is an obscure scientific publication . 79 news articles reporting the alarmists position followed.
    • Nature journal is the leading scientific journal in the world . 3 news articles reporting the skeptics position followed.
    • Chances are 79 to 3 that you heard something like this:
    • ABC
    • “ Did Global Warming Boost Katrina's Fury? Experts: Rise in Temperature Added More Water to Storm's Surge”
    • CBS evening news
    • "Global Warming Generating Short and Long-Term Drastic and Dangerous Weather Changes .“
    • MSNBC
    • “ Study finds strong warming tie to hurricanes. Half of Atlantic temperature increase in 2005 linked to global temperature rise”
    • Reporting on Gore’s partnership with Virgin Airlines founder Richard Branson, suggesting the two were “ They are teaming up to save the planet . Is Al Gore a prophet ?" CBS ’s Harry Smith, February 9, 2007
    • “ Al Gore is an environmental evangelist....now considered ahead of his time . “CBS’s Gloria Borger, March 2007
    • " He’s our modern day Paul Revere .“ Laurie David
    • “ Al Gore is helping awaken the world to global warming and educating the world .“ Diane Sawyer, ABC 's Good Morning America.
    • “ Will billions die from Global Warming?” Good Morning America ABC ’s Sam Champion, January 31, 2007
    • “ After extensive searches, ABC News has found no scientific debate on global warming . ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore, August 30, 2006
    • "Do people here know that very likely in the next several decades all of this is going to be under water ?“ CBS ’s Harry Smith was in Miami in advance of the Super Bowl. February 1, 2007
    • NBC ’s Meredith Vieira recounted how she was "running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this is great, but are we all gonna die ?“
    • “ Climate change is a controversy over ... what literally could be the end of the world as we know it.“ NBC’s Matt Lauer January 31, 2007
    • “ Climate change will eventually be recognized as the most crucial problem facing America and the world, and for the rest of our lives ” Paul Krugman, New York Times , January 4, 2008
    • Sam Champion Harry Smith Meredith Vieira Matt Lauer Paul Krugman
    • Schlumberger Excellence in Educational Development (SEED) global non-profit education program that serves students aged 10-18. Participants: 225 schools serving more than 250,000 children in 39 countries
    • “ We know that carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing in the atmosphere from human activities such as burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. This increase is one of the major factors in global warming . There is no longer any scientific debate about this . The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed this.”
    • "This is treason . And we need to start treating them as traitors .”
    • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
    • “ It's completely immoral , even, to question the UN’s scientific consensus.
    • Gro Harlem Brundtland, Special Envoy on Climate Change for the United Nations,
    • former Prime Minister of Norway
    • In Europe, Henry 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 .
    • "If you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster , you are treated like a pariah . It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way .“ William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute
    • Implies that changes in carbon dioxide levels preceded changes in global temperature . The opposite is true . Historically, temperature changes have preceded CO2 changes . Hubertus Fischer, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Geosciences Research Division, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA
    • B lames global warming for the decline “since the 1960s” of the Emperor Penguin population in Antarctica. In fact , the decline took place in the 1970s—possibly due to the advent of Antarctic ecotourism—and the population has been stable since the late 1980s .
    • Christophe Barbraud, Centre d'Études Biologiques de Chizé, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Bois, France
    • Warns that global warming is destroying coral reefs , even though today’s main reef builders evolved and thrived during periods when the world was 10-15°C warmer than the present.
    • Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    • Blames global warming for the severe drought that hit the Amazon in 2005. “ It is not possible to link the drought to global warming .” Gavin Schmidt of NASA, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia
    • Blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad , a disaster more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors such as overgrazing .
    • Martin Hoerling, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado
    • Asserts that a sea - level rise of 20 feet is a realistic short-term prospect.
    • The IPCC predicts the increase in sea level will be one foot.
    • Claims that Nairob i, Kenya, was malaria-free until recent global warming . In fact, malaria epidemics were common in Nairobi during the 1920s to the 1940s. The resurgence of malaria in East Africa is due to decreased spraying of homes with DDT.
    • Simon I. Hay, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
    • Claims that climate history from ice cores proves the Medieval Warm Period was “tiny” compared to the warming of recent decades. If fact, ice cores indicate that several decades of the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than any recent decade .
    • The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tucson, AZ
    • Claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades, there is actually a downward trend since 1950 .
    • National Climate Data Center, 2005
    • Michael Mann . “ Temperature increases are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years , and that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.”
    • Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change
    • Edward Wegman is chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics:
    • "The paucity of Mann’s data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable .“
    • National Academy of Sciences:
    • Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year , in at least a millennium "
    • “ Plants, and animals in Africa , butterflies in Europe and frogs in Central America are declining. It’s not about polar bears anymore. There is some temperature above which everything will go extinct. ”
    • Guy Midgley, Chief Specialists Scientists, South African National Biodiversity Institute’s Global Change Research Group.
    • Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a reduction of more than 80% over the next five decades in his state's emission of greenhouse gases .
    • “ We have placed global warming and greenhouse-gas reduction as one of our highest priorities in Congress ”
    • “ In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, global warming deniers have been laughed out of the debate ”
    • “ In my youth, fear of nuclear winter seemed the leading existential threat on the horizon, but the danger posed by war to all humanity -- and to our planet -- is at least matched by climate change ."
    • “ In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, will cutting carbon dioxide emissions produce a linear, predictable change in climate?
    • The answer is 'No‘. This is the science; the rest is dogma.”
    • Philip Stott, professor emeritus, University of London
    • While we worry about the far-off effects of climate change, this year:
    • 4 million will die from malnutrition.
    • 3 million will die from HIV/AIDS.
    • 2.5 million people will die from air pollution.
    • 2 million will die from a lack of clean drinking water.
    • Kyoto model – reduce 1,400 malaria deaths.
    • or
    • Save 180,000 malaria deaths with mosquito nets and medication
    • Bjorn Lomborg Danish statistician and author

+ Dennis BusseyDennis Bussey, 2 years ago

custom

29494 views, 17 favs, 5 embeds more stats

The great global warming trial. Will you be an ala more

More info about this document

© All Rights Reserved

Go to text version

  • Total Views 29494
    • 29483 on SlideShare
    • 11 from embeds
  • Comments 16
  • Favorites 17
  • Downloads 2458
Most viewed embeds
  • 4 views on http://cacumendediego.blogspot.com
  • 2 views on http://www.filescon.com
  • 2 views on http://www.fachak.com
  • 2 views on http://www.squidoo.com
  • 1 views on http://www.oplahol.com

more

All embeds
  • 4 views on http://cacumendediego.blogspot.com
  • 2 views on http://www.filescon.com
  • 2 views on http://www.fachak.com
  • 2 views on http://www.squidoo.com
  • 1 views on http://www.oplahol.com

less

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

Cancel
File a copyright complaint
Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

Categories