During 2007 the US Senate Committee on Environment received input from more than 400 scientists from all over the world disputing the proposition that the warming we're experiencing is anthropogenic in origin.
Are all of these scientists working for Big Oil? Do they all dispute that cigarettes cause cancer? Do they believe that the earth is flat?
It's not very likely, is it?
So where do these opinions come from? Here's a list of countries: Israel, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Brazil, France, Norway, Finland, Germany, Canada, the Czech Republic, India, USA, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland, Australia, Britain, China, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden.
Here are some of the best of the comments from these scientists:
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, 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."The most cynical of the comments comes from the Czech Republic:
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”
Britain: 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.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “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,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.As the article points out, only 52 scientists participated in the IPCC summary. These are highly politicised people who are completely in lock-step with the IPCC's political agenda.
On the other hand, Big Green's attempts to link Climate Blasphemers to Big Oil etc is specious at best and dishonest at worst.
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.No wonder nobody was keen to actually make any progress in Bali...
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.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
As they say, read the whole thing.
(Nothing Follows)
5 comments:
complete, and ongoing - how can something be both those things simultaneously?
By Dr Richard Courtney, I presume you mean the Technical Editor of CoalTrans International. Antonio Zichichi - retired professor of physics - not an active researcher of climate then. Zbigniew Jaworowksi is discredited; see for example here. How about Kukla? Well, let's see now... What is happening is very similar to the time 115,000 years ago, when the last glaciation started...the shifting sun warmed the tropics and cooled the Arctic and Antarctic - is that what's happening now? No! In fact, totally the opposite - the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula are heating up much more rapidly than the tropics.
These people have no credibility. Only the ignorant would adopt them so unhesitatingly as providing evidence of no climate change.
I could make the same list discrediting all of the so-called climate scientists, especially some of the biggest names - Michael Mann, Lonnie Thompson and James Hansen - all of who research has shown to be fatally flawed or completely bogus.
Go on then - do us a list. Don't just say you 'could' - put your money where your mouth is.
I would venture to say:
1) That the record-setting ice accumulations in the arctic and antarctic regions give the lie to Anonymous's "refutation" of Kukla;
2) That the Letter to the Editor "discrediting" Jaworowksi is not a peer-reviewed item nor a scientific attack, but merely a poorly phrased, poorly spelled, ad hominem defense (in a left-leaning German periodical, at that) of those whose research Jaworowksi criticizes;
3) That it utterly enrages the Climate-Change Faithful to be differed with, especially since they have no evidence for their contentions other than computer models and habitually claim that everything is consistent with their claims -- that nothing can be considered counter-evidence to the global-warming thesis;
4) That a well-confirmed scientific thesis doesn't need to be defended by silencing its critics or denying them access to a conference on the subject of interest;
5) That one who goes by "Anonymous" has no innate credibility, as he is obviously unwilling to allow his own personal reputation to be affected by his statements and their ultimate disposition.
But hey, that's just me.
I would venture to say that one's name matters far less than what one has to say, and that if you're so ignorant as to think that the Arctic is accumulating ice, then you blow your own credibility out of the water whatever your name is. Arctic sea ice shrank to the smallest area on record this year, US scientists have confirmed.
Post a Comment