Bluegrassrivals

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...63dc2d02cb




Seems as if there is a shift in the beliefs of scientists. :Thumbs:

I knew there wasn't a complete consensus on why global warming is happening, but everyone can agree that it is occurring.

While I was searching other sites for info on this I saw a post that responded to this report very well.

"Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report."

http://jamaoliver.wordpress.com/2007/12/...ng-claims/

I'm going to agree with this poster and say that I will take the long list of scientist and institutes's who think that humans are contributing over the 400 hand picked ones from a GOP's office.

erved:

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:I knew there wasn't a complete consensus on why global warming is happening, but everyone can agree that it is occurring.

While I was searching other sites for info on this I saw a post that responded to this report very well.

"Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report."

http://jamaoliver.wordpress.com/2007/12/...ng-claims/

I'm going to agree with this poster and say that I will take the long list of scientist and institutes's who think that humans are contributing over the 400 hand picked ones from a GOP's office.

Beef Wrote:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Over [SIZE=4]400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. [/SIZE]
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...63dc2d02cb




Seems as if there is a shift in the beliefs of scientists.

:Clap: :lmao: :dontthink

DevilsWin Wrote::Clap: :lmao: :dontthink

Just curious, it sounds like you believe in the crapola filled theory of manmade global warming....

What steps have you taken to ensure that your carbon footprint is kept to the lightest possible?

Unless there have been an ENORMOUS amount of mega volcanic erruptions in the past ...oh..say 20 to 35 years then humans are responsible for the rise in CO2. That could be the ONLY other reality that would explain that much CO2 in the atmosphere. I recently read that the new emissions law will have a drastic move toward better fuel economy so at least some INTELLIGENT people showed up for the vote. The 400 that were previously mentioned probably were just getting nestled into their new job appointments to the Mine Safety Board by the President.

Watchful Eye Wrote:Unless there have been an ENORMOUS amount of mega volcanic erruptions in the past ...oh..say 20 to 35 years then humans are responsible for the rise in CO2. That could be the ONLY other reality that would explain that much CO2 in the atmosphere. I recently read that the new emissions law will have a drastic move toward better fuel economy so at least some INTELLIGENT people showed up for the vote. The 400 that were previously mentioned probably were just getting nestled into their new job appointments to the Mine Safety Board by the President.

Volcanic explosions are responsible for global cooling. After every major eruption, we always see a very measurable decline in temps, and overall climate change.

And to think, just 30 years ago scientists were fearing 'global' cooling... time mag ran the headline on their cover... "Another Ice Age!".... give them about another 20 years, and we'll be hearing about astroids that could hit the planet... because of the magnets than man has created.

Watchful Eye Wrote:I recently read that the new emissions law will have a drastic move toward better fuel economy so at least some INTELLIGENT people showed up for the vote.

Because those congessmen/women are scientists... and not lawyers and businessmen.

That bill, which BUSH THE IDIOT LIBERAL signed will not change the course of our carbon footprint. The free market will do that job for us.

The bill is an energy bill, not an emissions bill. Get the facts, before you state what you think to be true.

"Three hundred scientists staying for three weeks on beautiful Waikiki Beach at the Ford Motor Company luxury hotel concluded yesterday after a year of study that the Ford Pinto blew up when hit in the rear end because drivers are idiots." If the earth were the soft tissue of the lungs, it could smoke a million packs of cigs and experience no damage. We all, to a certain extent, I guess, need to believe that which we believe, accumulating facts around us like a mother bird gathers straw and debris for a nest...

Ron, I liked you as a president..as an actor but not as a scientist! When instead of facing our coming problems head on we start finding people to agree with the theory that "it doesn't exist" we as a lifeform are in lots a trouble. The only characterisitcs of erruptions that cause a "cooling" as you call it is when the ash fills enough of the atmosphere to actually block the sun. If we know the amount of CO2 has risen drastically, then I ask you what do you think caused it? Since foilage and vegetaion assist in cleaning our air....how do you..President Ronald Reagan....fix it?

Alright. I know. I'm always wrong. I always have been, ever since I can remember." Ronald Reagan --as Drake McHugh in KINGS ROW (1942).

Watchful Eye Wrote:Ron, I liked you as a president..as an actor but not as a scientist! When instead of facing our coming problems head on we start finding people to agree with the theory that "it doesn't exist" we as a lifeform are in lots a trouble. The only characterisitcs of erruptions that cause a "cooling" as you call it is when the ash fills enough of the atmosphere to actually block the sun. If we know the amount of CO2 has risen drastically, then I ask you what do you think caused it? Since foilage and vegetaion assist in cleaning our air....how do you..President Ronald Reagan....fix it?

Alright. I know. I'm always wrong. I always have been, ever since I can remember." Ronald Reagan --as Drake McHugh in KINGS ROW (1942).

Dr. Watchful Eye,

Its not "cooling", its COOLING. And it has always happened following the catastrophic eruptions throughout history.

The facts are, methane released from decomposing vegitation, manure in the cow pastures, and water vapor in the air....... are shown to contribute MORE in many studies to the global warming that exists currently. Water vapor stores more heat than any of the other elements, including CO2.

Further, I've done extensive research in regards to placement of the thermo's that take the measurements. Many of which do not conform to the rules by the NWS and NOAA. Many are too close to heat sources (such as solid structures), not the required height off the ground, etc. With measurable temps rising by only some hundreths of degrees celsuis a year, its troubling that those who measure it.. do not do it correctly.

I'm absolutely convinced that the rise in CO2 is at the VERY LEAST, a fault of man. i'll not deny that. but it makes up possibly the smallest of reasons for the heating that is occurring. Water vapor, methane, increased solar activity, among other reasons increase at a much higher level, and are nearly out of our control.

This whole idea that we're actually seeing a drastic rise in temps may be overblown as well. Each year, new guages are placed throughout the world in places they never existed before.. which could influence it dramatically in either direction, depending on their locations. Then we also have only been recording temps for roughly a hundred years. And as stated in the Time Magazine article, from the 1940's until the 1970's we experienced global cooling. Were we not increasing CO2 levels at that point?

But yeah... these last two hurricane seasons have me convinced. We're in for it! :lmao:

And with the cooling of the eastern pacific ocean....

I dunno. You can post fact after fact supporting it... I can post fact after fact showing why its laughable.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com Check it out when you get a chance.

I haven't had much time to see what all is on there, but it was recommended to me by a friend.

There is no such thing as global warming

sherman14 Wrote:There is no such thing as global warming

...and smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer, does it squirmin' sherman?

Earth's climate has changed long before we were releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages. During the 17th and 18th centuries it was much colder. Further back in time the Earth was several degrees warmer, often these changes only took centuries or decades.

Here's some information to consider.

Reseachers at the Harvard-Smithonian Center For Astrophysics (CfA) concluded: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past Millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather. CfA also stated that clear patterns did emerge showing that regions world wide experienced higher temperatures from 800AD to 1300AD and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900.

There have be over 75 major temperature cycles in the past 4,500 years.

CO2 has gradually and continually increased since 1800, yet temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, thus causing some scientist to believe we were heading to an "Ice Age".

A United Nation report said that Livestock are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause Global Warming, that's more than Cars, Planes, and all other forms of tranporation combined.

Our current CO2 levels have been over 12 times higher in the past, and at a time when cars, factories, and power stations did not exist.

96.5% of all carbon dioxide emission are from natural scources.

Several studies over the years have indicated that CO2 levels rise as temperatures rise, but lags behind the warming by 800 to 1000 years.

We've all heard the reports on Glaciers melting, but if you dig deep enough you can find that a few are actually growing, while some are remaining the same. How can Glaciers become larger if the Earth is becoming warmer?

Just how accurate are these recorded temperatures? Here's why I'm asking for over 60 years the United States has used Surface Stations/Climate Monitoring Stations to record daily temperatures, there are over 1200 of these stations in operation today. When these stations were originaly setup, they were set in areas away from buildings, concrete, asphalt really anything that would cause inaccurate readings. Since then as cities and towns have expanded, they have built around these stations if you go to their web site www.surfacestations.org you can see that a lot of these units are sitting beside buildings, concrete walkways, parking lots, tennis courts one is sitting within 10 feet of barrel where trash is burned. While all of these 1200 stations are not like the ones listed above many are, and it makes me wonder just how accurate these readings are, you know it has to be hotter at the ones around asphalt, concrete and buildings. There is a group currently conducting site surveys of all 1200 stations with over 450 completed so far.

ronald_reagan Wrote:Just curious, it sounds like you believe in the crapola filled theory of manmade global warming....

What steps have you taken to ensure that your carbon footprint is kept to the lightest possible?

You are entitled to your opinion about global warming, but I dont think you can call man made global warming crap. The theory is backed by thousands of scientist and institutes, and has been researched for many years now. We know GW is happening, and man contribution to it is becoming more well understood each day.

I dont know what DW is doing, but I have been doing what I can to not just control my "Carbon footprint", but I have been trying to be a good citizen of this earth.

I recycle aluminum cans and plastic
I use as little electricity as possible, by not plugging in utilities Im not using, using a slow flow shower head to use less hot water. I unplug all appliances and electronics when I go to sleep.

I cant do much about my carbon output, I drive a gas loving dodge Dakota, and I don't have the money to buy a vehicle with better gas mileage. but I try to drive as little as possible, only taking trips when necassary, and when I travel to school my g/f and I take turns driving each day.

I have debated this issue before and I'm sorry but you didn't get in on that debate. It was very lively. Old School, Beef, Coach Owens 87, Cavemaster and I among others had this argument several months ago and I'm not going to go through it again for your amusement. If you want to know my stance look at the historical record.

Additionally I am not doing my part to control the problem. Big deal. Draw what ever inferences you want but it doesn't change the fact that global warming is occurring and we are contributing to it significantly.

ronald_reagan Wrote:Dr. Watchful Eye,

Its not "cooling", its COOLING. And it has always happened following the catastrophic eruptions throughout history.

The facts are, methane released from decomposing vegitation, manure in the cow pastures, and water vapor in the air....... are shown to contribute MORE in many studies to the global warming that exists currently. Water vapor stores more heat than any of the other elements, including CO2.

Further, I've done extensive research in regards to placement of the thermo's that take the measurements. Many of which do not conform to the rules by the NWS and NOAA. Many are too close to heat sources (such as solid structures), not the required height off the ground, etc. With measurable temps rising by only some hundreths of degrees celsuis a year, its troubling that those who measure it.. do not do it correctly.

I'm absolutely convinced that the rise in CO2 is at the VERY LEAST, a fault of man. i'll not deny that. but it makes up possibly the smallest of reasons for the heating that is occurring. Water vapor, methane, increased solar activity, among other reasons increase at a much higher level, and are nearly out of our control.

This whole idea that we're actually seeing a drastic rise in temps may be overblown as well. Each year, new guages are placed throughout the world in places they never existed before.. which could influence it dramatically in either direction, depending on their locations. Then we also have only been recording temps for roughly a hundred years. And as stated in the Time Magazine article, from the 1940's until the 1970's we experienced global cooling. Were we not increasing CO2 levels at that point?

But yeah... these last two hurricane seasons have me convinced. We're in for it! :lmao:

And with the cooling of the eastern pacific ocean....

I dunno. You can post fact after fact supporting it... I can post fact after fact showing why its laughable.

[url]www.globalwarminghoax.com[/url] Check it out when you get a chance.

I haven't had much time to see what all is on there, but it was recommended to me by a friend.

lol, you use global warming hoax as your source. I looked up the names of the people who run the site and I came across two politicians. One is a conservative party politician from Canada, and another politician from Australia. . What credit do they have as a scientist? What studying have they done on the subject, I doubt they have done any. I believe I will listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about. The site has a link that says "Rush Limbaugh shows global warming is not man made" Rush Limbaugh, come on, he must have been on some pills when he done that show.

People need to understand that it's not just the increase in CO2, we are taking out natures way of cleaning the air by destroying the forest. Humans have been destroying forest for hundreds of years, this could have lead to a co2 build up that is just now being rapidly increased. But no "hoax site" ever mentions that fact. That just show some skeptical scientist, and say that proves global warming is not man made. These sites change their minds so quick, just a few months ago this same site was saying global warming is not real, now they just say it's not man made, so they don't even know what they believe. We aren't 100% sure that man completely caused global warming, but we do know temperatures are rising unnaturally, co2 levels have increased, and that burning fossil fuels is the main cause of the rising levels of co2. So you put all of this together and it points toward man as the cause.

A lot of these sites like to say that the sun is the main cause, which is scientifically backed, researches at duke suggested that the sun may be misunderstood in this debate, and could have contributed 25-50% of the warming. I believe I will go with what we can observe, and not some theory that has been tossed out there. Fox news has used Sun theory as fact to support their idea that humans are not contributing to this. But this is all just political crap to back their oil loving buddies in the white house.

ronald_reagan Wrote:

Volcanic explosions are responsible for global cooling. After every major eruption, we always see a very measurable decline in temps, and overall climate change.

And to think, just 30 years ago scientists were fearing 'global' cooling... time mag ran the headline on their cover... "Another Ice Age!".... give them about another 20 years, and we'll be hearing about astroids that could hit the planet... because of the magnets than man has created.

I laugh when people compare global cooling with global warming, it just shows how uninformed you are. I cant even debate global warming with you anymore, using crap comparisons like this show that you really don't know the subject at all. I don't feel like typing a full detailed response to this, so go to this link, it shows with facts, how the comparison of global warming to global cooling is not well grounded.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

I'm not a scientist but I don't think all that crap we put into the atmosphere is helping the climate very much.