On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 22, 7:06 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:15:08 -0600, "Brad Darnell"

wrote:
I guess you are a non believer in
global warming as well. 99% of scientist agree with Mr. Gore

I love these minions of the Goracle. 99%.

BBAAAWWWAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!!

More like 30% and decreasing every day as more and more scientists
begin to examine the data.

Cite? BWAAAHAAA indeed.

Try reading for a change Bassy.

99% of scientists? Does that include ALL scientists?

I don't think so.

Hell, even Al's mentor is deserting the ship.

Here - a small sample for you Mr. Cite.

Scientists who conclude that the observed warming is more likely
attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya
Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of
the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International
Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level
of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century
- growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties
to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated
greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion,
ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature
record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases
in the air." Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable
evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or
floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas
content."

David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former
botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world
is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that
can’t be fixed." Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data
and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from
the debate on global warming", but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic
organization and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and]
such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of
fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison: "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."

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the
issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in
predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and
rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at
the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and
describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s
climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier
of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly,
microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates
of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s
climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are
negligible."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that
attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that
increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a
much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This
mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical
models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the
complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We
know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past,
and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future
climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun
a downward cycle."

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened
without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the
current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool
slightly until about 2035"

William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State
University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural
alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean
salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little
understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent
temperature changes. We are not that influential. I am of the opinion
that [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."

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University
and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I
think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST
of it is still natural."

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the
Center for Climatic Research, University of Delawa "About half of
the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and
natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean
Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change a
well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ...
solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the
greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the
extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working
together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative
importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution.
Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which
is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and 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
atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have
always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was
the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton
University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In
fact, when CO2 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. On the basis
of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of
the past century's modest warming?"

Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
"We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the
whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually
follows climate change rather than drives it".

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former
president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the
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."

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "The
truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of
skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the
past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more
dominant over the next century. ... About 2/3's (give or take a third
or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to
increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."
His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past
few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the
effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect. It’s
not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that
warming is good, and so do many economists.”

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "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. The
bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then,
yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the
recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more
important than previously assumed."

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research
at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more
significant factor..."

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has
discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level
play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level
clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During
the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting
reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the
warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low
cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from
University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human
impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ...,
and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as
the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations
are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise,
observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the
multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the
most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but
time will be the final judge."

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any
principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or
natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the
International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks: "The method of study adopted by the International Panel of
Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless
conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence
that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect.
.... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed
natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion
should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is
baseless."

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The
increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and
mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase
will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate
is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2.
Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and
the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or
fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and
century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than
the variations of CO2 content."

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State
University: "It is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global
surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is
greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record.
However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming
direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C.
.... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface
temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric
temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This
difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate
models."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports "I'm sure the majority
(but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see
neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that
human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I
see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the
coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures
have loose similarity over time."

William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State
University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human
produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the
noise of the natural variability of the climate system."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology
and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence
of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon
dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are
natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that
carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish
between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The
amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years
is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown.
There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate
change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is
likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my
opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on
the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean
temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that
atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and
(3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the
earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to
confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what
the climate will be in the future. There has been no question
whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas —
albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute
to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2
should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in
Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing
could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how
much you can attribute to mankind."

Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.

Now go eat some turkey and enjoy the afternoon.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 22, 7:06 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:15:08 -0600, "Brad Darnell"

wrote:
I guess you are a non believer in
global warming as well. 99% of scientist agree with Mr. Gore

I love these minions of the Goracle. 99%.

BBAAAWWWAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!!

More like 30% and decreasing every day as more and more scientists
begin to examine the data.

Cite? BWAAAHAAA indeed.

Try reading for a change Bassy.

99% of scientists? Does that include ALL scientists?

I don't think so.

Hell, even Al's mentor is deserting the ship.

Here - a small sample for you Mr. Cite.

Scientists who conclude that the observed warming is more likely
attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya
Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of
the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International
Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level
of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century
- growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties
to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated
greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion,
ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature
record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases
in the air." Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable
evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or
floods that can be related to the air's increased greenhouse gas
content."

David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former
botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world
is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that
can't be fixed." Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data
and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from
the debate on global warming", but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic
organization and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and]
such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of
fossil fuels-certainly not before the end of this century."

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison: "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."

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the
issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in
predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and
rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at
the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and
describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's
climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier
of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly,
microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates
of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's
climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are
negligible."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that
attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that
increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a
much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This
mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical
models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the
complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We
know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past,
and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future
climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun
a downward cycle."

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened
without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the
current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool
slightly until about 2035"

William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State
University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural
alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean
salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little
understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent
temperature changes. We are not that influential. I am of the opinion
that [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."

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University
and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I
think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST
of it is still natural."

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the
Center for Climatic Research, University of Delawa "About half of
the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and
natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean
Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change a
well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ...
solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the
greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the
extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working
together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative
importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution.
Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which
is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and 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
atmosphere hasn't changed much in 280 million years, and there have
always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was
the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton
University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In
fact, when CO2 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. On the basis
of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of
the past century's modest warming?"

Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
"We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the
whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually
follows climate change rather than drives it".

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former
president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the
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."

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "The
truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of
skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the
past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more
dominant over the next century. ... About 2/3's (give or take a third
or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to
increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."
His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past
few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the
effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect. It's
not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that
warming is good, and so do many economists."

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "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. The
bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then,
yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the
recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more
important than previously assumed."

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research
at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more
significant factor..."

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has
discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level
play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level
clouds, which largely regulate the Earth's surface temperature. During
the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting
reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the
warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low
cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from
University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human
impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ...,
and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as
the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations
are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise,
observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the
multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the
most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but
time will be the final judge."

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any
principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or
natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the
International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks: "The method of study adopted by the International Panel of
Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless
conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence
that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect.
... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed
natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion
should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is
baseless."

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The
increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and
mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase
will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate
is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2.
Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and
the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or
fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and
century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than
the variations of CO2 content."

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State
University: "It is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global
surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is
greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record.
However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming
direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C.
... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface
temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric
temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This
difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate
models."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports "I'm sure the majority
(but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see
neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that
human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I
see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the
coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures
have loose similarity over time."

William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State
University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human
produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the
noise of the natural variability of the climate system."

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology
and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence
of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon
dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are
natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that
carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish
between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The
amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years
is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown.
There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate
change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is
likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my
opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on
the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean
temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that
atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and
(3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the
earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to
confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what
the climate will be in the future. There has been no question
whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas -
albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute
to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2
should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in
Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing
could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how
much you can attribute to mankind."

Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.

Now go eat some turkey and enjoy the afternoon.

What the heck do those guys know, o' great WarLord? :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news

snip

Now go eat some turkey and enjoy the afternoon.


Forget to mention, one roasting in the oven and one going in the fryer in
two hours.

Enjoy, whichever way you like it.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.

Some have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to have their names removed from
the report.

BillP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.

Some have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to have their names removed from
the report.




Amazing how almost everyone in denial about our contribution to "global
warming" spouts the same right-wing crapola. Obviously science denial is
a right-wing kind of thing.

On Nov 22, 11:17�am, HK wrote:
BillP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.

Some have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to have their names removed from
the report.

Amazing how almost everyone in denial about our contribution to "global
warming" spouts the same right-wing crapola. Obviously science denial is
a right-wing kind of thing.

Harry, I've notived that it sems to me that any comment that you may
disagree with, you tend to lable as "right-wing". Which is neither
true, nor necessary.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:05:11 -0500, hk wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:17�am, HK wrote:
BillP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:14:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Please note how many of these fine scientists were members of the IPCC
panel and disagreed with it's conclusions.
Some have had to sue, or threaten to sue, to have their names removed from
the report.
Amazing how almost everyone in denial about our contribution to "global
warming" spouts the same right-wing crapola. Obviously science denial is
a right-wing kind of thing.

Harry, I've notived that it sems to me that any comment that you may
disagree with, you tend to lable as "right-wing". Which is neither
true, nor necessary.

Almost everyone who denies science is on the right.

Let me see - real scientists who are in serious doubt aren't really
scientists? Put another way - your assertion is that all those real
scientists who are advising caution and presenting evidence that
directly refutes the current global warming hysteria are right wing
extremists? You know - those guys who invented the science?

Including those on the IPCC who are now running as far and as fast as
they can from the IPCC report? Or those who were deliberately
misquoted by Al Gore and the IPCC panel?

Come on Harry - get informed, just don't follow along with the
rhetoric and disinformation campaign led by the Goracle.

Remember - the first and most important propaganda principle is for a
problem to be perceived - as in propaganda evoking audience interest
transmitted through attention-getting communications.

And as I'm sure you know, being a Union type, the second most
important principle of propaganda is that it must offer some form of
action or diversion, or both.

"An Inconvenient Truth" comes immediately to mind as fitting both of
those important criteria.

I would suggest that instead of immediately demonizing the "right",
you might actually want to figure out why it is that some of these
very real and very important scientists are saying what they are
saying.

By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.

SWS,
Nice to meet you, are you new to the group?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:34:16 -0500, Reginald Smithers III
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.

SWS,
Nice to meet you, are you new to the group?

Why yes - yes I am.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:34:16 -0500, Reginald Smithers III
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


By the way, denunciation of any group or principle is "hate speech" -
which I'm sure you would never participate in.

SWS,
Nice to meet you, are you new to the group?

LMAO, truthfully. That was funny!
--
John H