Letter to al gore on global warming

utick

This is an open letter to Al Gore from the Founder of the Weather Channel (John Coleman).

It is long, but a very good read and I have included it in it's entirety.

If Global Warming is a concern of yours. Regardless of what you personally believe, you should take a couple minutes to read this. John Coleman has been studying weather for well over 55 years.








by John Coleman

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.













Coleman has well over 55 years experience studying weather.

Al Gore absolutely refuses to debate Global Warming with him.

Al Gore also owns a company that sells Carbon Credits. (Conflict of interest?)


TWO QUESTIONS:

SHOULD AL GORE DEBATE JOHN COLEMAN?

WHY DO YOU THINK HE IS REFUSING TO DO SO?

biko

tl;dr

Sherifu

biko wrote: »

tl;dr

+1.

Davidius

Dear Al Gore,

Nuke global warming and be done with it.

Yours,
World Leaders.

Guy:Incognito

I'm not reading all that. Is he saying wel done to Al Gore for championing the cause or calling him a tit and saying he's wrong?

Davidius

Stekelly wrote: »

I'm not reading all that. Is he sayin gel done to Al Gore for championing the cause or calling him a tit and saying he's wrong?

Yes. lolnonanswer

KnifeWRENCH

Didn't a lot of the stuff that Al Gore featured in his documentary turn out to be bollocks?

biko wrote: »

tl;dr

Pfft. That ain't long.

THIS is long.

:pac:

Mahatma coat

my that is quite a long cat.

yeah a lot of the stuff in Al Gores movie is utter bollox, the one that stands out is the corelation graph for rising CO2 and rising temprature, he makes out that as CO2 rises tempratures rise, however a cursory glance at the actual graph will show that it is in fact the other way round, which kinda stands to reason, if it was warmer there would be better survival rate amongst animals hence more lifeforms breathing out.

it is a huge conspiracy alright, that said tho some fools in Sydney want to start carbon tradin with our forests, Just like Al gore I'll support this thing if it makes me money, screw you guys, screw the truth, screw the future

gixerfixer

Paid for by the American automobile society

Macha

No matter what you think about global warming, no one can ignore the inherent finite nature of these resources & the fact that our entire lives are based on them. When they run out, we're screwed.

Where's our food going to come from? What's going to push all that machinery around farms, what's going to replaced fossil fuel-based fertilizers, how is it going to get from the farm to the consumer?

How are we going to power our vehicles? What will replace all our convenient cheap consumables manufactured in China?

Basically, even if you don't think global warming is man-made, our total dependency on fossil fuels is a massive problem in and of itself.

Caoimhín

Global warming is just a conspiracy by the CIE.

Mahatma coat

taconnol wrote: »

No matter what you think about global warming, no one can ignore the inherent finite nature of these resources & the fact that our entire lives are based on them. When they run out, we're screwed.

No we're not, our children are,

Where's our food going to come from?

the shop

What's going to push all that machinery around farms,

cheap eastern european labour

what's going to replaced fossil fuel-based fertilizers,

I was unaware of fosilFuel fertilisers I wqs under the impression that the nitrates were extracted from amonia in the air

how is it going to get from the farm to the consumer?

I have a farm, **** the consumer

How are we going to power our vehicles? What will replace all our convenient cheap consumables manufactured in China?

Basically, even if you don't think global warming is man-made, our total dependency on fossil fuels is a massive problem in and of itself.

Macha

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No we're not, our children are,
the shop cheap eastern european labour I was unaware of fosilFuel fertilisers I wqs under the impression that the nitrates were extracted from amonia in the air I have a farm, **** the consumer

What an informed, stimulating reply...zzz..

Keano

Global Warming

Sherifu

Global Warming wtf

thecaptain

We all know global warming/carbon taxing is yet another scam.

Wertz

Umm....coal? Gas? Deforestation? 100's of millions of years of locked up carbon poured back into the closed system, with no sink? Increasing ocean acidity? Desertification? Visible ice sheet shrinkage and permafrost thaw? Feedback loops?
I'm sorry this is about so so much more than f*cking gasoline prices.

I'm going to go with "vested interest" here....the guy's a scientist, I'm not, so take whatever I say as you will. I don't subscribe to Gore's crap about carbon credits and the sky falling in either FWIW; these people are two sides of the same coin.
Truth is, whatever is happening is going to happen irregardless of our collective actions at this point....the folly is believing we can do anything to change the planets destiny either way...

thecaptain

Wertz wrote: »

Umm....coal? Gas? Deforestation? 100's of millions of years of locked up carbon poured back into the closed system, with no sink? Increasing ocean acidity? Desertification? Visible ice sheet shrinkage and permafrost thaw? Feedback loops?
I'm sorry this is about so so much more than f*cking gasoline prices.

I'm going to go with "vested interest" here....the guy's a scientist, I'm not, so take whatever I say as you will. I don't subscribe to Gore's crap about carbon credits and the sky falling in either FWIW; these people are two sides of the same coin.
Truth is, whatever is happening is going to happen irregardless of our collective actions at this point....the folly is believing we can do anything to change the planets destiny either way...

You have taken in all the propaganda.

Waken up.

Sherifu

thecaptain wrote: »

You have taken in all the propaganda.

Waken up.

Please, keep going...

Wertz

thecaptain wrote: »

You have taken in all the propaganda.

Waken up.

Of course I have. I read about all the "propagada" and the issues involved long before Gore started beating his drum.
I've subscribed to the Gaia hypothesis since I read the first of Lovelocks series of books back when I was in 2nd year....that was about '87. Barring a few open university progrmammes, no-one had really caught on to greenhouse effect, global warming and such and they certainly weren't the buzzwords that they are now.
This weatherman's outlook on things here is solely focused on vehicular emmissions...talk about a one track mind. Vehicular CO2 the world over accounts for maybe 20% of the total, he completely ignores the mass burning of gas and even worse, coal. He also neglects to mention that our means for dealing with excess atmospheric CO2 is being reduced each year by the continued turning of mature tropical and temperate forests into wood for fuel and land for farming. It's called burning the candle at both ends...and all Gore's carbon trading bullsh*t and planting a few f*cking saplings ain't gonna do squat when huge regulatory systems are being felled and burned the world over.

Go away and educate yourself on both sides instead of thinking that people are just re-hashing the last news item they saw on sky news, and basing their whole argument on that.

BTW petrol/gas whatever isn't expensive because of carbon taxes or some other scam...they're expensive because of market forces, a dawning realisation that it's a finite resource, and mostly because of panic buying by commodities brokers on the global markets that has turned into a feeding frenzy...fair enough, the supply issues have a bit to do with the lack of refinery infrastructure, perhaps through shortsighted environmentalist policies, but it's simple supply/demand rules that are at the bottom of it...

Bottom line; if this guy had anything new to say, he'd be writing to Nature or New Scientist, not to Al "Invented the internet" Gore...

RATM

I find it strange that this scientist can write a long winded open letter about global warming without mentioning the hole in the ozone layer even once. How did it get there? Did it just manifest itself? Were the laws of cause and effect thrown out of the window when it came to the ozone layer?

Anyway I reckon there's going to be even more of these types of letters going round in the next few years. The big oil companies/car manufacturers/airlines have massive vested interests in exposing climate change as false, whether it is true or not.

Mere mortals like ourselves cannot truly get beyond what is propaganda on this issue.So I reckon it is simple, there are 3 positions you ca take on this one

1)We can disbelieve that climate change is true and do nothing.In this scenario if the hypotheses turns out to be false then we are rightly screwed.

2) We can believe it is true and make the relevant adjustments to try and combat it. If the hypotheses turns out to be true then at least we have made steps to try and combat it.

3) We can believe it is true and make adjustments but it later turns out down the line that it was false. In this scenario the hypotheses may be false and we made all these needless adjustments but at the end of the day these adjustments would have helped nature regardless, which can never be a bad thing.

Its a bit like the Y2K Bug- if people had of sat around saying, nah thats a load of sh1te and done nothing to solve the problem then we may have been rightly screwed. But because they didnt and hundreds of thousands of IT professionals worked to solve the problem it turned out that we had no problem ( And alot of IT geeks got filthy rich along the way !).

With climate change we only truly know 2 things:-
1)We know that we dont truly know which bunch of scientists to believe.
2)We know that if the hypotheses is true and we do nothing because we believed one bunch of scientists over another then we could be in the soup big time.

So to me overall the best thing to do when there is uncertainty is to do something. Generations from now it is very possible people will look back and say 'How wrong those scientists were' and if we dont do something its very possible there will be no generations around to say that.

Davidius

biko wrote: »

tl;dr

ts;dr

thelordofcheese

thecaptain wrote: »

We all know global warming/carbon taxing is yet another scam.

There is no emoticon for the contempt i feel towards this post.

I'll take the opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community over one guy writing an open letter to Al Gore.
As someone pointed out earlier, if he's so damn sure that it's all a fraud, why is he wasting his time with this rubbish? Do the research, write a paper, present his facts to his peer and if he's right then he's right.

Manic Moran

I'm not sure I see the correlation between Gore's comments, be they true or not, and the high fuel prices.

The letter of May 20th has my curiousity piqued though. I'm curious to see it, if the numbers are true and the PhDs are actually of something appropriate, it is interesting that it hasn't gotten much press coverage.

NTM

Wertz

To be fair, publishing anti global warming views in broadstream media is currently about as popular as saying 9/11 was an inside job, or that there was no holocaust...

ART6

Seems to me there are two issues here. One is who do we believe about global warming and whether or not it is a natural phenomenon or caused by us. The second is do we pay some attention to the greater picture of what we can do to protect our environment in general.

To the politicans and the global warming claim supporters we should be cutting carbon emissions by taxing everything that burns anything and produces CO2. It's a simplistic approach that misses the point about other gases like Methane that have a much greater effect and don't come from combustion processes.

The second issue is one that has been patiently worked upon for generations, and has resulted in clean rivers and cleaner seas, better food, healthier people and animals, and that is what we should continue with.

Let's not get so hung up on warming alone. It's just a part of the much greater problem that there are just too many people consuming too much and polluting too much. Oh, and incidentally, the hole in the ozone layer wasn't caused by CO2 or global warming. It was caused by CFCs that were used in everything from refrigerators to aerosol cans.

AckwelFoley

55 years exp in weather?

years wasted.. hes an idiot.

Global warming is happening, and independan reasearch prove it

AckwelFoley

Wertz wrote: »

To be fair, publishing anti global warming views in broadstream media is currently about as popular as saying 9/11 was an inside job, or that there was no holocaust...

exactly.

Overheal

thelordofcheese wrote: »

There is no emoticon for the contempt i feel towards this post.

I'll take the opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community over one guy writing an open letter to Al Gore.
As someone pointed out earlier, if he's so damn sure that it's all a fraud, why is he wasting his time with this rubbish? Do the research, write a paper, present his facts to his peer and if he's right then he's right.

oh so you're actually on the side that says global warming is a scam then? how ironic for you.

Oh, and incidentally, the hole in the ozone layer wasn't caused by CO2 or global warming. It was caused by CFCs that were used in everything from refrigerators to aerosol cans.

thanks i was waiting for someone to say it.

Wertz

Overheal wrote: »

oh so you're actually on the side that says global warming is a scam then?

proofplz kthx

Overheal

C'oitanly:

The Letter wrote:

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

Wertz

I'd already read the full letter posted in the OP. Thanks though. It doesn't equate to anything much...anyone can cite names and titles on a list, sort of like an online petition....but until I see some stuff published in the science journals that can substantially refute GW/CC and human influence, I remain unconvinced. I've heard the sunspot thing bandied about for years as a cause, I've seen people try to claim the dispersion of ash from St Helen's and Pinatuabo eruptions as reason for a warming trend...to me, they're all staring past the elephant in the room. Hell that's just my semi-educated opinion on it though...

Overheal

well im not too pushed one way or the other. if you want the hard proof you can google it.

thelordofcheese

Overheal wrote: »

oh so you're actually on the side that says global warming is a scam then? how ironic for you.

The Letter itself wrote:

On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand.

heh. Ohh this gets better and better.

Lets have a closer look at this rubbish shall we?

This petition was started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (a dubious crowd to say the least) ,now lets see what the criteria are to be a signatory on this petition are, well amongst the people who've signed it are (and from their own website and with the number of signatories beside it)

Astronomy (58)
Astrophysics (25)
Computer Science (217)
Mathematics (575)
Statistics (111)
Physics (2,310)
Nuclear Engineering (215)
Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
Aerospace Engineering (585)
Medical Science (726)
Engineering (7,289)
Electrical Engineering (2,075)
Metallurgy (387)

I've bolded some of the more odd figures, what makes you think Mech. Eng people know more about the complexities of the the global climate than the 900 scientists on the UN pannel.

Quantity does not equal quality.

As an aside i could sign it given i have an MSc and i've done no quantified, scientific research on the problem. I could say i don't believe that global warming is real, however i'm as much an authority on the subject as a dog on the street.

Now, to look deeper into names on the list, well some of the people that have signed on are "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor), "Robert C. Byrd" (An american senator), "John C. Grisham" (the author).

Infact In 2005, Scientific American reported:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

And lastly overheal your maths is atrocious. Even if we assume that everyone on this list is a credible scientist who knows the in's and out's of climate change and it's causes you're telling me that there's under 62,000 scientist in the entire world? Otherwise, i'd imagine the majority still agree that climate change is real.

Genghiz Cohen

Wertz wrote: »

proofplz kthx

Show me the proof of global warming.

Wertz

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stm

But don't bore yoursefl with science journals...look at the news, Iowa in the US has had it's worst ever floods this year
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/2007-04-26-iowa-flood_N.htm
whilst most of the deep south US is in the grip of prolonged drought the past decade.
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/waterconditions/drought_summary/DroughtUpdate.asp

Look out your window last winter? See all those plants flowering and birds nesting? They don't want proof...they already have it as is evidenced by their presence.

Like Overheal said, I'm not that bothered (and there's nada we can do to alter the path GW/CC will take anyhow) so google away to your heart's content, open your eyes and don't believe like some on this thread that it's all just a scam to squeeze more money out of you...

Ponster

snyper wrote: »

55 years exp in weather?

years wasted.. hes an idiot.

Global warming is happening, and independent research proves it

Wasted indeed.

The scientific debate as to whether or not humans were responsible for rising CO2 levels ended a few years back.

Climate Expert

Wertz wrote: »

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stm

But don't bore yoursefl with science journals...look at the news, Iowa in the US has had it's worst ever floods this year
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/2007-04-26-iowa-flood_N.htm
whilst most of the deep south US is in the grip of prolonged drought the past decade.
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/waterconditions/drought_summary/DroughtUpdate.asp

Look out your window last winter? See all those plants flowering and birds nesting? They don't want proof...they already have it as is evidenced by their presence.

Like Overheal said, I'm not that bothered (and there's nada we can do to alter the path GW/CC will take anyhow) so google away to your heart's content, open your eyes and don't believe like some on this thread that it's all just a scam to squeeze more money out of you...

Hello to all.

I'm sorry Wertz but your anecdotal evidence is wholly innacurate.
Last winter was one of the coolest in over 20 years.
Please feel free to look at these results from the Hadley center as shown by the Met Office UK.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability_figures.html#g_a_r_temp

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/images/annual_ranked_temp_lg.gif

The scientific debate as to whether or not humans were responsible for rising CO2 levels ended a few years back.

Scientific debate never ends especially with a complex one shot phenomenon like climate change.

Genghiz Cohen

Wertz wrote: »

don't believe like some on this thread that it's all just a scam to squeeze more money out of you...

Well it's better to believe this than to buy straight in to a nice hybrid car and all the other stuff people are trying to sell to stop global warming.

Climate Expert

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Well it's better to believe this than to buy straight in to a nice hybrid car and all the other stuff people are trying to sell to stop global warming.

Indeed.
The irony with hybrid cars is that the total cost C02 from manufacture to use is higher than other cars.

Still it alleviates a lot of that middle class guilt so it must be good.

I am a bit sceptical of those that believe that global warming will result in catastrophic consequences if nothing changes.

There are other factors to consider, mainly that the supply of fossil fuel is limited. If the current rate of exploitation and increases in consumption continue, there will soon be a peak in grenhouse gas emmissions followed by a fairly rapid (30-40 years) drop off to levels seen before the industrial revolution.

This is the most likely senario that will happen.

The great unknown factor is, will these emmissions exceed the "trigger point" that causes "thermal runaway" (sonething I don't believe in).

I would be more concerned in preparing mankind for life after cheap and plentiful fossil fuels than co2 emmissions even though both issues require similar treatment.

Jim-Corr

Al Gore has gills

Davidius

Stop farting, you'll kill us all!

Manic Moran

Wertz wrote: »

Look out your window last winter? See all those plants flowering and birds nesting? They don't want proof...they already have it as is evidenced by their presence.

Speak for yourself. I suffered through the worst snow in over ten years in Kentucky this year. (In mid-March, no less) Fortunately I have all-wheel-drive.

NTM

thecaptain

The plebs have been has again, this "global warming" is pure rubbish.

The best way to take control over a people and control them
utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode
rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible
reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights
and freedoms being removed until past the point at which
these changes cannot be reversed - Adolf Hitler

Glowing

thecaptain wrote: »

The plebs have been has again, this "global warming" is pure rubbish.

The best way to take control over a people and control them
utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode
rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible
reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights
and freedoms being removed until past the point at which
these changes cannot be reversed - Adolf Hitler

Oh FFS. This is nothing to do with control.

Okay, you might not believe that global warming is an issue, or you might believe that it's happening but it's a natural process - either way, what HARM will it do to start generating our energy from more natural sustainable sources - reducing pollution for a start, making the entire planet a more pleasant place to live, and to possibly shave a few pounds off your arse in the mean time.....

thelordofcheese

thecaptain wrote: »

The plebs have been has again, this "global warming" is pure rubbish.

The best way to take control over a people and control them
utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode
rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible
reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights
and freedoms being removed until past the point at which
these changes cannot be reversed - Adolf Hitler

Shouldn't you be trolling the European Union forum?

Also, if you're convinced it's "pure rubbish" show us some science, not a quote from an austrian man with anger issues.

norbert64

c'mon folks, let's stick it to Al Gore :rolleyes:
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/16/fox_promotes_carbon_belch_day_save_the_planet_waste_as_much_energy_as_you_can.php

Wertz

Climate Expert wrote: »

Hello to all.

I'm sorry Wertz but your anecdotal evidence is wholly innacurate.
Last winter was one of the coolest in over 20 years.
Please feel free to look at these results from the Hadley center as shown by the Met Office UK.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability_figures.html#g_a_r_temp

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/images/annual_ranked_temp_lg.gif


Scientific debate never ends especially with a complex one shot phenomenon like climate change.

Really? Daffodils, birds nesting and buds on trees in january? Not just here either but in the UK as evidenced by numerous media sources at the time. Not the first year it's happened but seems to be that few weeks earlier each year.
If you know half as much as you're letting on then you'll know that global warming is a misnomer and that it's as much about wider variances in temperature and deviations from accepted norms in all areas of the planet...I'm a wee bit tired of this simplistic atitude along the lines of "Oh global warming? So it must mean everywhere's going to be hotter? yay!"....the rise in average temperatures globally may lead to locally cooler climates for some regions especialy in continental climates...this is climate change, a much better description than global warming which conveys higher temps everywhere.

Manic Moran wrote:

Speak for yourself. I suffered through the worst snow in over ten years in Kentucky this year. (In mid-March, no less) Fortunately I have all-wheel-drive.

NTM

See above; user experiences may differ according to local conditions. Warmer averages do NOT imply locally warmer conditions.


I have to agree on the prius thing and the green goods/services movement in general, but only because I long ago reached the opinion that we can neither hope to curtail our love of carbon fuels and the energy they produce, nor can we put the genie back in the bottle as regards the 200 years of industrial scale burning of carbon. It's too late to do anything bar trying to prepare for what's to come....the sooner the green movement relaise that and move away from this futile strivance for lower carbon emissions, the better it'll be for all of us. The one reason we should be worrying about efficient use of carbon fossil fuels is the limited supply, not the resultant emissions...

Overheal

thelordofcheese wrote: »

heh. Ohh this gets better and better.

Lets have a closer look at this rubbish shall we?

This petition was started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (a dubious crowd to say the least) ,now lets see what the criteria are to be a signatory on this petition are, well amongst the people who've signed it are (and from their own website and with the number of signatories beside it)

Astronomy (58)
Astrophysics (25)
Computer Science (217)
Mathematics (575)
Statistics (111)
Physics (2,310)
Nuclear Engineering (215)
Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
Aerospace Engineering (585)
Medical Science (726)
Engineering (7,289)
Electrical Engineering (2,075)
Metallurgy (387)

I've bolded some of the more odd figures, what makes you think Mech. Eng people know more about the complexities of the the global climate than the 900 scientists on the UN pannel.

Quantity does not equal quality.

As an aside i could sign it given i have an MSc and i've done no quantified, scientific research on the problem. I could say i don't believe that global warming is real, however i'm as much an authority on the subject as a dog on the street.

Now, to look deeper into names on the list, well some of the people that have signed on are "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor), "Robert C. Byrd" (An american senator), "John C. Grisham" (the author).

Infact In 2005, Scientific American reported:


And lastly overheal your maths is atrocious. Even if we assume that everyone on this list is a credible scientist who knows the in's and out's of climate change and it's causes you're telling me that there's under 62,000 scientist in the entire world? Otherwise, i'd imagine the majority still agree that climate change is real.

and you and i both have a degree in....what?

mechanical engineers are the ones building combustion engines after all. always trying to find ways to make their product cleaner and more fuel efficient sure, and its strange to think they wouldnt have to consider the impact of what theyre doing.

Wertz

Overheal wrote: »

and you and i both have a degree in....what?

mechanical engineers are the ones building combustion engines after all. always trying to find ways to make their product cleaner and more fuel efficient sure, and its strange to think they wouldnt have to consider the impact of what theyre doing.

Yes but what makes them qualified to comment on the complex science of climatology and atmospheric dynamics?
If your teeth are giving you trouble do you ask a chiropractor for advice and/or remedy? Or do you prefer the dentist? The chiropractor may have an understanding of dentistry and vice versa, but neither is qualified to do the other's job competently...